Mouse,
Have you considered the possibility that the two are not mutually exclusive -- that they're both right?
Undoubtedly, some biblical literalists will be offended by this, and that's not my intention. But the idea that the earth was created no more that 6 thousand years ago (according to literalist determinations made by calculating the ages of the Old Testament Patriarchs) is simply non-credible. The overwhelming evidence stands unrefuted that life has existed on this planet for hundreds of millions of years.
That said, who's to say what mechanism initiated this? Why is it not possible to accept that evolution and natural selection is the chosen method by which the creator established the order of life? I've asked this question repeatedly to believers over the years and never received a satisfactory reply. So I'll ask you the same question.
If you accept that life on earth is substantially older than the literalist interpretation of a few thousand years, why is it not possible for "evolution" and natural selction to be the chosen method by which "creation" was made manifest?
At this point, I usually say to the questioner, "Hope this answer helps." But in this case, I'll close by saying, "I hope this question helps." Cheers, mate.
2006-11-22 20:35:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
As an agnostic I side with evolution...but can not disprove the other side totally...But really, I have given it as much deep thought as my mental abilities allow and to believe in creationism is, BY FAR, much more difficult. I have to suspend ALL REASON
to believe that some intelligent thing created life. Some say that it's extremely difficult to believe we're a product of evolution, and yet at the same moment these same folks want us to believe in a god!!...Which, if it existed, this god, would surpass ALL OF EVOLUTION in complexity....think about it.
Or, which is more complex, god or the theory of evolution?
The faithful would say god is so complex he's beyond comprehension...and if this is a fact then why can't they also accept the much more simple Theory of Evolution?
2006-11-22 20:26:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe in creationism since it is more logical in all facets if you truly study the independent theories. While I do agree that I cannot prove that God created the world, an evolutionist has the exact same dilemma. In fact, one has to believe that something existed in the beginning of time... and that Spirit or thing (Creator)... had no beginning, whether that was the "first atom" or God. Further, all things came into existence through that creator... be it God or the atom. However, to believe that an asexual reproducer transformed into "two" sexual reproducers with distinct characteristics that are independent of one another... but totally reliant on one another... THAT is a huge leap of faith. Just think about it for a minute... how could a male and its female counterpart "evolve" at the exact same time through "natural selection"? Would the female reproductive organs have been aware of the male's reproductive organs and been able to control their shape and functions? The probablities for such a conclusion do not mathematically exist... so... what one is left with is this... evolution or creation... both are faith-based. Thus, I choose to acknowledge my Creator.
2006-11-22 20:06:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Laurie V 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Evolution. It is supported by evidence of complexity increasing with time. This does not refute Creation which is not a theory, but rather, a doctrine. It is not a theory because it is intrinsically untestable, but that does not invalidate it.
Complex life did not come from nothing. Simple things combined and became more complex. Time is the critical factor.
2006-11-23 04:20:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
~So complex life cannot evolve over time from lower and ever lower life forms. So true. It makes ever so much more sense that an all powerful, all knowing being existed in nothingness and from there created a place from which it could then create everything. To what evidence exactly do you refer other than the superstitious rantings of ignorant savages who lacked the insight, intellect, wisdom or scientific curiousity to explain the laws of nature and instead created legend, mythology and folklore which has been perpetuated, copied and repeated in various forms over the milenia? And from what alien sea slug did you diety evolve, or was it created by an earlier version? Oh, it was always there? Ah, then there never was just nothing, even in your scheme of things.
2006-11-22 22:14:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Evolution is a fact. All the living on this earth is from a plant called blue alga. From there, all creatures have evolved, first to seaplants, then shrimps, fishes, lizards, mices, wolves, monkeys humen...animals of every level have left to witness this fact for all to see and understand.
this all is generally teached in european high schools on a biolog and geography lessons. If you dont know these basic facts, you can not get a high school degree in western Europe
i`m totally shocked to read here, that most of the answerers actually dont know these things and even think about believing in creationism.
I am awear of the america`s some states plans to start these creotism teachings, and I can only try to guess what the agendas are behind it. (Most likely political ones...)
2006-11-22 20:48:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I'm a Christian, but creationism is not particularly good science. I do believe in a higher power that caused the earth to be created.
Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact. Our human ancestors had more teeth and were shorter than we are. That's evolution. Does it disprove God? Certainly not.
God uses his own methods and is master of all nature. He has no need to take shortcuts, but I believe He has the power to use them when needed.
I believe religious people serve God best by continuing to seek a better understanding of His methods and motives and never by closing their minds to new information.
2006-11-22 20:11:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Warren D 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Evidence collected by the evolutionist is incomplete and many links are missing. Nothing changes by it self. if it is so a cow of a thousand year ago should have grown into something else. life evolves in various stages. It is so and god ordained Man can never create life from nothing.According to evolution theory man himself should have changed into something else by this time.
So I am for creationism
2006-11-22 22:34:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Brahmanda 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both. Creation and then evolution-how can there be a debate when nothing could exist without there being something created to evolve-
2006-11-22 21:13:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by WW 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
life did not come out of nothing. the whole universe is full of organic chemical. there are gas and dust clouds between and all around the stars that are full of them. these are the building blocks of life. a suitable site, with suitable conditions, like earth, and chemistry does what chemistry does. atoms bond together to form molecules, molecules can take on a verity of forms and some of them will form in such a way that they will bond with other molecules to form replicas of themselves. this is not just chance, these is the basic laws of our universe. from there on the slow road to life is just a process of the molecules becoming more efficient at replicating and protecting itself from 'cannibalisation' by other replicating molecule by adding a protein coating, this meant that this replicator would survive better and produce more replicas of itself. honestly this is basic chemistry. the fact that life came into being is no mystery, just the method by which it happened on earth. the something from nothing argument is a smokescreen, the whole universe is full of the building blocks of life.
2006-11-22 20:27:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋