Which do you think is true Evolution or Creation, and what prove do you have to back it up?

Question

There is a lot debate over evolution and creation, which do you except as the truth, and why is that.

Answer 1

Evolution.

Considering that it's a theory (which means not "just a guess" but a set of connected natural phenomenon that have been researched, tested and verified by multiple independent sources in the scientific community) I'd say that counts as pretty compelling proof.

Answer 2

You don't- and more importantly, you can't, at least in the traditional sense of the word. Evolutionary theory is just that- A THEORY. The reason why most scientists generally accept it as fact is because there is physical evidence that at least some of the ideas proposed by the theory are true. That doesn't mean THEY ALL ARE, however- every theory leaves room for debate and dissention- that's why it's called a THEORY. Creationism, on the other hand, is a STORY which was written by one of the authors of the Bible- and no one living today has any idea who those authors were or what their background was. It gets treated as false because we have no obvious way to prove that it is true. Those who believe entirely in Creation only are largely basing their beliefs on religious faith, rather than on any type of scientific understanding. I am NOT saying this is right or wrong- this type of forum is not the place for that kind of debate. You have already answered your own question in part. Most theories start out as attempts made by a person or people to try explain something which is happening in the world around them, the way Einstein did with his theory of Relativity. In the beginning, a theory is called a hyposthesis, until some effort has been made to try to test out the ideas contained in it and see if they are proven correct or not. If the ideas in the hypothesis prove to be true, and this proof is repeatable ( in other words, if more than one experiment or trial produces the same or similar results) then the hypothesis becomes a theory at that point. The theory of Evolution came about because we needed a way to explain where we came from scientifically- without the confusing and contradicting ideas which are found in the Bible, which is actually full of contradictary ideas. The original proposers of Evolutionary theory, which included Darwin, were only using what resources were available to them at the time- and recording what they saw, heard, and understood to be true from those observations. This ultimately led Darwin to propose his idea of Natural Selection, because he quite rightly observed that there were spieces of animals and plants in the Galapagos Islands which were found nowhere else on the planet. There was only one way that this could have happened, at least in Darwin's mind- either the animals had been placed there by an unknown force ( called by whatever name you want to use) or as was more likely, they evolved there, and were protected from outside interference by the islands' natural isolation from other lands. Further observation and testing proved the latter idea to be the correct one, and it became the basis for the Natural Selection theory which is still used in biology today. The same thing began to happen in the modern age, as the sciences of Archeology, Paleontology, and Anthropology developed and changed over time. These sciences all involve the search for FACTS, not philosophies or beliefs, the way Creationism does. As more and more physical evidence was uncovered and found, the ideas about Creation began to slip and be replaced by those of Evolutionary theory. But keep in mind that as advanced as Evolutionary theory is, it is still just that- a theory, nothing more. There have been attempts to try to get it made into fact, and accepted as a scientific "Law", but so far, this hasn't worked, at least not here in the US. There is currently too much pressure from the various religious groups for this to happen easily or quickly. This is a great question- it's nice to see one about something other than someone being pregnant and scared on this column. PS: Charles Darwin was also a devout Christian, in case anyone reading this answer is unaware of this. There have been many scholars who were also deeply religious people- that doesn't make their ideas any less true or less valid.

Answer 3

I believe in Creation,and not just because I am a Christian. I have extensively studied and researched both Creation and Evolution,and have come to the conclusion that evolution has too many inconsistencies in it to be totally accurate. Microevolution is the only sensible proof that has come from the theory. I could list numerous scientifically proven facts against evolution,but the space it would require is tremendous.The only way someone can know for themselves is to research it thoroughly,both sides of the issue.If you don't want to take the Bible literally,at least research Creation Science websites and books and see just how many scientific facts there are to refute evolution.Everything but microevolution has been proven to be either false or full of inconsistencies. Just because evolution has been taught and preached extensively by evolutionists doesn't necessarily make it true. Science took a theory made up by a man who never had a scientifically inclined mind and ran with it.Just the history of how the theory of evolution came to be is sketchy,at best,let alone the great lengths scientists went to to keep the theory going.The history of the theory is truly horrifying when one sees all the evil that was wrought from it.All this was being done just to keep a Creator out of the equation. As a matter of fact,the theory of evolution is truly what started the atheistic movement,and people latched unto it in a desperate attempt to try and prove a Godless origin to life. Common sense and pure logic completely dispels the theory. No,I am not a scientist,but the scientists who insist that the theory is undisputably true are mainly the scientists who have dedicated their lives to proving no Creator,because, after all,science deals in observable evidence,and since God can't be seen,He can't be real,right?
Go ahead,all you people who question evolution or creation,do the research for yourself. Study both sides of the issue,and try not to let your bias keep you from learning what is true and what is false.What you have always accepted as proven fact may just not be as proven as you have been led to believe.

Answer 4

I answer a question like this at least once a day, so here we go again.

It depends on what you mean by "evolution". If by evolution you mean micro evolution (a species changing and adapting over time), then I would say it does exist and there are ample evidences of it; animal husbandry and agriculture being the largest bodies of work on the subject. If you are referring to classical Darwinian Macro evolution (one species changing and becoming another, different one) then the answer is no. There are numerous problems with macro evolution including the deletious nature of mutation, the lack of Abiogenesis as being a viable scenario, the inability to replicate the creation of life, the scientific refutation of gradualism, and current discoveries in microbiology have proven the me that macroevolution is not a viable theory.

So that leaves us with two possibilities, punctuated equilibrium and intelligent design. PE has its own problems, but to my satisfaction has not been totally refuted. Intelligent design is broken down into two types, Transpermia (that life originated elsewhere and was carried here via meteors or some such) and creationism. The likelihood of two planets having the necessary conditions for life are very remote, something like 1 to 1x10 ^99. Statistically impossible, but we cannot be 100% certain in that. If true, all it does is delay the inevitable question of how did life on that planet begin and we are back where we started.

So it leads us back to Creationism, which is subdivided into Young and Old Earth. Young Earth is pretty fully refuted on scientific as well as theological basis, so by process of elimination I arrive at Old Earth Creationism. This seems to fit most solidly with the available data. Below is a good website that has many good articles on many scientific / religious issues.

Answer 5

I laugh when people say there is over whelming proof of evolution; then don't produce this overwhelming proof

In the world of man-made things anyone would scoff, if you said these things came from nowhere or made themselves by a big explosion. Our experience is that explosion is destructive. The universe is governed by 20 stable principles, without which it could not exist: (example of these laws: Gravity, the weight of electrons, Electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces...)These laws are fine turned without them we could not live. Does not law imply a lawgiver. When in our experience has chaos lead to order? That is one of the few reasons I believe in Creation. ( I don't however believe that the earth was created in 6 24 hour days)

Answer 6

I ACCEPT (not "except," which means "to leave out") the truth of Genesis that our universe was spoken into existance by God, who is omnipotent and timeless.

My evidence is as follows:

The Bible speaks of the earth being round ("the circle of the earth"--Isaiah 40:22) some 3,000 years BEFORE Christopher Columbus proved the earth is round.

Ancient folklores all over the world tell of a massive flood. There was absolutely no intercontinental communication recorded until thousands of years afterwards. The odds of these stories developing independently are beyond astronomical. There HAD to have been a destructive, worldwide flood as described in Genesis, chapters 6-8.

Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("matter is in a constant state of entropy"--that is, matter is constantly decaying). Anyone who paid attention in a high school Science class can tell you that scientific laws are absolute and can never be broken. Therefore, the rabidity with which secular scientists can cling to an already-disproven theory and treat it as law is beyond me.

Finally, look about you. Section a nautilus shell. Check out a dogwood blossom. Examine a sand dollar. Anyone who can analyze nature and its perfect proportions and NOT see clear proof of intelligent, purposeful design has a faith in denial MUCH more rigid and unyielding than the faith I have in my God. And I'm not denying what my God said in His Word for ANYTHING of mortal man!

Answer 7

Creation

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

Answer 8

There is no debate. A small percentage of Christians take a portion of the Bible literally and deny scientific facts.

The rest of the population accepts the science and dismisses the small group of creationists as Christian Extremists.

The vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. I was taught at Catholic high schools and at a Catholic university that Evolution is true. Even Pope John Paul II agreed with that position. Since Catholics make up more than half the Christians, we can say without a doubt that the majority of Christians have no problem with evolution.

Answer 9

Creation... look outside. Doesn't look like an accident to me.

Creation and Evolution are both beliefs. Neither can prove that they are right. Creation says that an Omnipotent being created everything in 7 days. Evolution says that nothing became something, blew up, and turned into everything. Both can seem foolish at their basic level, but I beleive only one to be true.

Answer 10

I believe in creation. Here are my proofs that you can understand.

1. Nothing can come from nothing; for every effect there is a cause
2. The Universe is expanding, and anything that expands has a beginning; anything that has a beginning must have a maker, except for the Ultimate Maker, God

3. Simple logic and common sense support creation, rather than evolution.

4. Mathematicians say that the likelihood of the universe coming together in one big bang is more than 1 x 1Trillion.

5. The complexity of life around us, the synchronized laws of the universe all suggest a designer and a maker.

6. If you have clicked on my earlier posts about evolution, there you will find that many of the so called "proofs of evolution" are fraud.

Answer 11

Evolution makes more sense to me. The unfortunate thing about this debate is that neither side can prove anything. That's why nobody ever wins it. Evolution follows a logical process whereas creation doesn't need to. Every time a sign of evolution is pointed out, the creationist response can say, "That's because God made it that way," which is really a cheap way out of it...but it's logical with their argument. Nobody wins this one so you might as well just let it rest.