probably to late for this evolution stuff but.........?

Question

why is this the focus of religions? you say it doesnt have anything to do with how old the earth is but somehow i doubt that

crazyness, why dont you people just come out say that it contradicts what the bible says instead of just call it "only a theory"?

Answer 1

I am always puzzled by this stance of some in the Christian Community. As it is stated, God created the universe and the earth. Science is the observation and study of the universe and the earth, the creation of God. To be against what science observes, is to be against God's creation. Scientists are revealing to us what God has created in detail, sometimes in spectacularly beautiful images like fractals, or electron microscope photos, that if you believe in God, you can only marvel at the wondrous beauty of the Creation. It seems to me that Christians should embrace science, and that this would improve their standing in the modern world and make their religion more viable to modern man.

Answer 2

I don't think evolution is the focus of Christians. Something most people don't talk about is we have no idea how long Adam and Eve was in the garden. So to say the earth is older than what the Bible says is silly. Evolution is a ridicules theory that changes all the time. I am still waiting for some one to show how a non living cell became a living cell and then how did reproduction come into being. And if evolution is all way going forward some one need to explain about the whale. it was a fish became a land animal that could move on land but went back into the sea. you might look up Darwin's theory it will make you laugh

Answer 3

True history leaves evidence that can be interpreted by rational minds. A book was written just a few thousand years ago and some people are trying to change the interpretation of the evidence that occurred over billions and millions of years, to agree with that more recently written book.

Ignorance is NOT bliss - after contemplating the cost of the damage done.

Crazy, yes ;)

Answer 4

I think you're right--anything that contradicts the bible must be wrong according to the 'faithful'.
But really they are fighting for the hearts and minds of the masses, who lose faith when they are confronted with things the bible doesn't explain or even mention.

Answer 5

I think that, unfortunately, the debate has left the realm of science and entered the realm of politics. And because of the so-called "seperation of church and state" Religion and science are seen as mutually exclusive, to the point where evolution has become a psuedo- religion itself. So sad. :(

Answer 6

Because we believe the Bible's truth which says the earth was created by God rather than man's "theory" of evolution.

Why should it matter how old the earth is? It doesn't change or negate the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins and He is waiting for a personal relationship with you.

Answer 7

Be in silence with that doubt and u will know the answer. Many answers are found in deep silence not by words or anybody saying it.

Answer 8

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)." THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION IN SAYING "COMMON DESIGN" BUT, THERE IS A HUGE ASSUMPTION IN SAYING, "COMMON ANCESTOR".

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.