Evolution or Creation, why?

Question

Which do you believe and why, and make a good point, not just...because.

Answer 1

Creation, then evolution. If you look at the species today you can see how they have evolved from years ago. For instance, birds becoming more resistant to pollution because of factories. But I don't believe that everything came from a single cell or a big bang caused by astronomical energy and gases, so I believe that something created organisms (preferably a God, but I'm flexible) and they evolved from their first shape to better deal wtih their environment.

Answer 2

Evolution ( please don't yell at me or bombard me with religion). I think it's more plausible than creation. It seems to me that the current idea of God is impossible. One being cannot be omni-benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent at the same time. The world would be a perfect place if there was such a creating being. The world obviously isn't perfect. Some people say that evil is due to the devil, but if God is the single uncaused cause, then he created the devil. If he's all knowing he knew the devil would be bad, and if he's omni-benevolent then he never would have created anything bad. See how that works? It's impossible. The idea that one day a perfect being that always has been and always will be just on a whim decided to create us is so unbelievable. If he is truly perfect and unchanging he would have had no need to create us because everything was already perfect. It just doesn't make any sense. Evolution, however, has happened. I know that there's been a new specie of moth that has evolved. It is unfortunate though that humans have kind of hit an evolutionary plateau. Our society's intelligent people take care of the stupid people and keep alive other people that would normally die in an uncivilized state. This being the case we have shot ourselves in the evolutionary foot. ....
....

....

Where was I? ... Oh yeah, evolution not creation.

Answer 3

The universe before the big bang was formless and void, and a large release of light certainly occurred at the big bang... After matter formed stars there was both light and darkness, and when the earth formed, it was hot and molten...

Sounds good for one "day"

At some point, the earth cooled and water settled on it.

Sounds good for a second "day"

Eventually some land was above the water, some below. Sounds like earth and seas to me. And if you can believe it - plants grew first. One can think of vegetation covering the planet.

Sounds good for a third "day".

Now this was possible only because of night and day, seasons and stars. I'd interpret this as a slightly out of order realization of the events, but it makes for a good pause in the creation of things...

And sounds fine for a fourth "day".

You might get worried when I suggest that the next significant development was the evolution of living creatures. You know, starting with the ones in the water and expanding from there.

Sounds good for a fifth "day".

The development of land creatures would be the latest event. It would be easy for anyone to understand that there was a time before "man" existed, and there is also just as clearly a time when "man" had been established.

Let me suggest that in between them, there was a time just before "man" existed - we'd call the creatures that were developing something other than "human". And then a child was born that we could designate "the first human". And since we know the race continued from there, we had to have both a male and a female of the species...

I'll leave to guesswork which one came first, but it does seem to make for a very good sixth "day".

There isn't much to describe what would have happened on the seventh "day" in the story as it was rest. We do seem to see a lot of the development of human kind through the story left behind in artifacts and books.

And so - which part of this story is objectionable to the creationists? Which part to the evolutionists? Why is one better than the other?

I'll expect some creationists to take issue with my definition of "day", but really - how long is a "day" to a god, and who was there writing it down anyway? For a book that speaks mostly through symbolism, let's not start getting picky about specific word choices here.

I'll also expect some evolutionists to take issue with the thought that there is more to life than this physical world. That's ok though, it'll all work out in the end...-)

Answer 4

A lot of people take offense at the idea of evolution, because they think it excludes God. But just because it doesn't mention God, that doesn't mean that evolution excludes God. People once believed that lightning bolts were thrown from the heavens by the gods. Now we have explained lightning in purely naturalistic terms, without reference to God, but nobody denounces IT as "atheistic." The same could be said for a million other phenomena. There is nothing different about the origin and evolution of life. To those who think otherwise, and would say, "life is a special case, so your lightning analogy doesn't work," I would reply that we understand quite well how a fetus and a baby develops in the womb from a single-celled organism, without reference to God (except perhaps to implant a soul). And again, nobody calls embryology atheistic.

One other thing I'd like to make clear. Evolution is NOT random, and does NOT work on pure chance. In truth, nothing works on chance. When you flip a coin, you ordinarily say that you have a 50% chance of coming up tails. But if you knew everything about the coin flip, such as the height and the velocity of the toss, the air resistance, and so on, you could say with absolute certainty whether or not it was going to come up tails. In the same way, evolution works through specific biological and ecological mechanisms that are no more random than the velocity of the coin toss. Similarly, lightning doesn't strike randomly, for no reason at all, even though it may seem like it. There are definite physical processes going on behind the scenes that, like the processes of evolution, are difficult to figure out. Some people, despite this, still call evolution chance, because it's nothing more than "matter in motion," but this makes as much sense as calling a lightning bolt or an earthquake random on the same grounds.

I think that if just these two ideas, that evolution doesn't exclude God, and that it isn't random chance, were understood by the majority of people, a lot of the pointless bickering over this issue could be avoided.

Answer 5

When I was a boy, I avidly read the bible and about dinosaurs, and for some time I had a simultaneous belief that earth and man was created in six days and that earth and man was created over millions of years. That seemed okay to me because I was just a kid, what's the problem with a contradiction like that? When I got older, I realized that I can't have this illogical inconsistency, and so which one is more likely to be closer to fact? By that time, I was aware that there were hundreds, even thousands of different books exploring early earth and cosmic history, with a dazzling array of thoroughly investigated fields including cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, tectonics, climatology, zoology, cellular life, evolution, biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, the list seemed inexhaustible, all of them addressing ancient events millions and billions of years ago. What's the competing view? Just the bible, with a simple story of creation spanning a a few dozen verses. And there are dozen of other creation stories like it from around the world. It didn't take me long to decide that the theory of evolution, with all the associated fields of science that buttresses it, had a lot more to offer. I relegated the Genesis story to matters of religion, where it properly belongs, and not science.

Answer 6

It does not matter what I believe, the truth does not need my belief to be true and the truth is true regardless of belief. I could go into a long explanation of evolution, but it would not educate the closed minded and would be preaching to the choir for the others here. So, the theory of evolution by natural selection ( straight evolution is fact ) is supported by mountains of evidence and has predictive power. The, " what ever ", of creation has absolutely no evidence to support it and you could not predict next Tuesday from it.

Answer 7

Evolution could be seen as a method of creation. Both evolutionism and creationism cannot prove the origin of life or the origin of single cell creatures.

At this point of time, we still don't have enough knowledge to answer this qestions ==>> Evolution or Creation, why?

Answer 8

If we agree that the state of affairs with us over here is chaos, out of control and grossly unjust, we can only believe in evolution ...... a powerful Creator would not let matters go out of hands to such an extent that His own creation be seriously threatened of complete destruction!!

But belief is belief..... the believer in God would still argue that it may all be a part of God's grand agenda that we mortals can never decode!!

One can only believe, either in evolution or creation....... logic can do little to change it or justify one way or the other!!!

Answer 9

Hmmmmmm I don't really care but to make my point. First of all, Evolution is to random. Everything has to be specific in order to end up like this. So it is too random. Creation is stupid too, I feel it is hard to believe that we are created out of thin air. And third, ID(intelligent design) a mixture of both. NOW that is retarded. Sorry for this but those are my points. I believe in nothing... awkard isn't it...

Answer 10

Interesting how some have tried to preclude religion, asking others NOT to introduce it, and then build an entire argument against theology. There is no creation without theology, and no religion without theology either. Thusly it is as crucial to this question as any other factor.
To a degree, everything evolves. Our bodies grow and then shut down, as per their design. Mutations happen and are often passed from one generation to the next regularly.
But one cannot study the workings of amoebae or protozoa or plants or trees or farm animals without a wonder at the inner workings of such, and the persuant diversity. The idea of a master architect who created beings with a free will who can chose to either love or deny him and the ability to learn, reason, and themselves create and procreate is much more fathomable than to even begin to conceive all of this diversity happened "by chance". The tendency to deny Him is in my opinion spurred by OUR desire to absolve ourselves of our responsibility to Him and his principles. Probability (logic) alone would dictate that organic developement alone would NOT forbear our current diversity, as in petri dish experiments where spores grow fungi but have yet to abberate to new fungi on their own. Conditions and circumstances would foster regional super-developements of specie, again, not a diverse ecosystem.
I see the world full of evidence and answers, from the very same facts cited as antithetical.