English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

now tell me which one has scientific facts to support it.................... ill give you a hint its the only one that has any facts at all

2006-12-06 16:24:18 · 27 answers · asked by Red Eye 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

27 answers

It is so much sadder for those who know not the truth.
The Bible teaches us that to believe a lie is to be damned.
My God spoke the word and the world was formed.
7 days 700,000, years I know not ,but I believe in creation.
We still share more DNA with a pig then an ape.<><

2006-12-06 16:35:18 · answer #1 · answered by funnana 6 · 4 3

I am amazed at the ability of scientists to correlate information and make the kind of determinations that developed the theory of evolution. I certainly do not mean to detract from their devoted work and their intelligence. The theory of evolution does draw some assumptions that trouble even the most devoted scientists. The main one is the assumption that all things now occur at the same rate as they did in the past.
Since there were no humans alive to record the changes that are reported to have occurred with evolution, it is in truth, only a theory. I agree there is physical evidence to draw an opinion from but there again, it is an assumption and therefore still a theory.
I think people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate should leave a few options open as to the possibility that each side has some validity.

Creationists need to realize their God could have taken much more time than they understand from their "bible" to do His work which would leave the door open for evolution to occur.

Evolutionists should consider that if there was a God who could create an entire planet filled with thousands of living creatures, He certainly could alter the time frame of events as scientists would understand it.

CRISTIANS AND EVOLUTIONISTS:

STOP BEING ASSES BENT ON DENIGRATING THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

2006-12-07 04:42:24 · answer #2 · answered by Harley Charley 5 · 0 0

Creationism is a scientific discipline. It's true that many creationists are Christians and a few here and there are muslims but the discipline itself is scientific. All of the main people in the creationist organizations have doctorates in their field and many worked in the field for many years. The father of modern creationism was Henry Morris. He had a doctorate in geology and was the head of the geology department at the university of south carolina(or one of those major universities down in south carolina.
As far as fact for evolution, there are none. Your article said "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones". The only problem is that no one has ever seen that happen. That's just talking about biological evolution or how we went from the 1st cell to man. What about chemical evolution or how did we get thje 1st cell from dead chemicals. Darwin said very little about that. He diedn't have a clue. Darwin himself was not an evolutionist, at least, not as taught in the universities today. Evolution, as defined in the modern universities, means change by random chance with no help from a creator or supernatural being. Darwin didn't believe that. Darwin said "The process of evolution is a grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. … Evolution is a process of God's using." He was really kind of a theistic evolutionist. That's not what's taught in the universities.
But there is a 3rd option between evolutionist and creationists which you didn't mention and that's the intelligent design crowd. They believe that the evidence shows design and design demands some kind of a designer. The creationists believe that too but the I.D. crowd doesn't start with any religious presuppositions as the creationists and the evolution crowd do(evolution is also a religion).
As I have said before in other answers, It seems to me that the intelligent design answer to the evolution question is irrefutable. It simply says that design in the universe is undeniable. The law of cause and effect says that wherever you find design you must have a designer somewhere. Since the cause must have everything the effect does and the effect(the universe) has intelligence, the cause(the designer) must also have intelligence. So you need an intelligent designer of this universe. But who could design a universe outside of a God. You call Him whatever you want to call Him. I call Him a God. That refutes evolution since evolution says that everything came about by random chance. The I.D. argument, it seems to me, is irrefutable. It's a simple logical argument:
Premise #1: Wherever you find design, you need a designer.
Premise #2: The universe exhibits design
Conclusion: The universe needs a designer.
The only way around that argument is to deny the second premise. Every atheist has to deny design. As I've said before, If you read Richard Dawkins two latest books('the blind watchmaker' and 'the god delusion') that's exactly what he does. He denies design. He says that there's no design in the universe, just the "appearance of design". But that's insane. You just can't logically and realistically deny that there's design all through the universe. It's all around you. You have to be blind not to see it. There are branches of science that basically just study the design in nature.........scientific disciplines such as nano-technology and bio-mimetrics. These disciplines study the design in nature.......whales,bats,dolph... have sonar.......and try to create machines that mimic that design. Everywhere you look there's design. Where there's design there's got to be a designer. That's just common sense. Creation is not an unproven theory. It's a common sense fact that we come to by just using a little logic and reason.
Paly's argument of the 1700's still holds today. He said that if you are walking through a forest and you find a watch sitting upon a rock, you have 2 possible explanations: 1)It was designed and built by a watchmaker 2) It came about the same way the rock that it is sitting upon came about.....by random chance. Which explantion makes more sense?
Linking articles from Wikipedia means nothing if you are not willing to deal with this irrefutable argument and also show some real evidence for evolution.

2006-12-06 17:17:50 · answer #3 · answered by upsman 5 · 0 1

I know, sometimes I feel like screaming when I read some of the uneducated comments about the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory but I guess most people dont understand the definition of scientific theory.... it doesnt mean a fantastical imaginary scenario, it represents generations of in depth scientific study with plenty of factual supporting evidence. Evolution has happened, is happening and will continue to happen on this planet doesnt matter if a few people close thier minds to it, its a fact and it will never be disproven... also technically evolution has nothing to do with religion and does not disprove the existence of any omnipotent being, for some reason fanatics think it threatens thier belief and attack with ignorant frenzy.

2006-12-06 16:28:57 · answer #4 · answered by Kelly + Eternal Universal Energy 7 · 6 3

MICROevolution is a fact, i accept that. there still is NO PROOF for MACROevolution.
note sentence 1 of paragraph 3 on your evolution link: "The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out... by Charles Darwin"

note the word THEORY. in other words, evolution is based on the ideas of 1 man, the theories of 1 man, a man who said women are dumber then men because they're heads are smaller. Darwin obviously didn't know everything. how can we assume that his other statements are true then, especially since they were based on theory, not on scientific evidence. you will also be surprised to know that before he died, Darwin became a Christian, and that is a fact.

therefore, your whole argument is worthless, so you take your theorized thoughts of fallible man, and i'll take my cue from the big guy. if our paths happen to cross, as they are wont to do, i'll nod my head and continue my trek.

good night, and God bless.

ps. to those of you with comments about the difinition of theory, yes research goes into it, but even scientific laws have been changed, so get off your high horse.

2006-12-06 16:37:25 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 2 2

No it is sadder to see people who look into the wonderful world around us and the amazing precision and order and beauty in the starry heaven and keep on saying that there is no God and everything came into existence by itself.
A little girl was walking with her agnostic dad in a park, when she saw a piece of brochure with beautiful pictures of flowers, animals, balloons, advertising a festival in the park. She pick up the brochure and ask her dad if she could keep it. The dad said yes. A little distance further she saw another one. When she picked the second one, it looked exactly the same as the first one. The little girl said: Look Dad, another one, exactly the same, how clever the person who drew this picture must be that he can draw two pictures exacty the same.
The father smiled at the innocence of his little daughter that it is made photocopies made by a machine called computer printer.
The little girl was silent and admired at the inteligence of her father.
Not long after that, they to a hedge of hibiscus flowers. Suddenly she remarked: "Dad, I think there must be tiny computer printers inside those plants, that it can print the same beautiful flowers exactly the same size and color."
Isn't it strange that people don't believe brochures cannot came by itself or are the result of an explosion in a warehouse where they keep paper and paints, but believe that all the beautiful flowers, leaves, fruits, animal and human beings can reproduce itself so precisely without a designer and maker, but just as a result of an explosion called the Big Bang billions of years ago?

Yes, both are theories, Evolutionism and Creationism, but it is easier to believe that there is a God who is super inteligent who designed and created everything in such a variety and precision, than to believe it happened by chance or accident.
Unbelievers ridicule people who believe Christians who believe in Creation because we depend on faith. But actually a greater faith is needed to believe that there is no maker no creator, that everything came by itself.

2006-12-06 16:47:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

does evolution occur....sure....we see it all around us. can we prove humans came this route? no....many think we can...but there are millions of years and at least 4 skeltons that would need to fit into the ape family line to link us 100% to it. without those skulls and bones.....its just a theory...no FACTUAL PROOF. Even Emily, that last known skull found that many thought would link man and ape actually pulls man more away from ape than it connects man to ape.

Creationism....its true, but not in the form that one day POOF the earth, moon, planets and man was here. It actually goes back to the beginning of time....you believe in the big bang theory right?

all we know came from a point of origin of nothing that exploded in turn creating all we know of today. But who created that spot of nothing that exploded into everything? God

But not the God that the Bible, Koran, etc all speak of....as these books are nothing more than the mayan calendar....a star chart to the heavens as the earth and the milkway travel through the universe.

Few examples:

old egyptian god...Amen-Ra, the sun god. Well today we say Amen to God. And Son of God or Sun of God. Hmm...easy mistake in translation to english. Specially when you consider only english has 2 definitions for sun or son...others translate to male child or female child. So one has to easily come to the conclusion that its the same Gods from the beginning of man, just rewrote over time.

No different than what man does today to books, music, clothing, fashion, etc. Its all rewritten, redraw, recolored over time to show it again and again.

2006-12-06 16:34:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

I understand that science reserves the right to re-examine and change theory. "Fact" would be a little harder to change 100 years from now when new evidence could nullify a previous finding.

2006-12-06 16:34:07 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 3 0

There is not an animal that crawls in the earth, nor a bird that flies on its two wings, but they are communities like you. We have left out nothing in the Book. Then to their Lord shall they all be gathered together.

And Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are some that go upon their bellies, and of them are some that go upon two feet, and among them are some that go upon four. Allah creates what He pleases. Surely, Allah has the power to do all that He pleases.

And how many an animal there is that carries not its sustenance! Allah provides for it and for you. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

2006-12-06 16:33:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

Give me a break...Wikipedia, the open content encyclopedia built and edited by any person who chooses to do so....what a reliable source. Next time try www.gullible.evolution.com

2006-12-06 16:31:54 · answer #10 · answered by me 6 · 6 1

fedest.com, questions and answers