Would you prefer the biblical creation of man, or the scientific evolution by Charles Darwin?

Answer 1

WHO CARES!! WHAT HAPPENS AFTER IS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.

Answer 2

The biblical creation of man is not a literal story in fact if you look in Genesis there are two creation stories one written from a J perspective which is yahwist and another from P which is a priestly perspective. Both paint the picture of God creating man out of the ground meaning they had to relate creation to something they understood and pottery was a common element they all shared. If you look at early eastern history many creation stories have the element of dirt or dust and a potter creating humans and I think its because they could understand it. We as in modern times use science to explain it because its something that we can all understand. So basically I would choose the biblical creation because I can relate to that and it gives a reason why. In the scientific it doesn't give a reason why but rather how and it leaves too many unanswered questions. Sorry so long.

Answer 3

Science is not governed by popular opinion. Science looks for evidence, tests hypotheses, tries to falsify theories. Evolution is science, Biblical creationism isn't. It is as simple as that. There is more and stronger evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity yet we seldom hear Biblical literalists disputing gravity.

The germ theory of disease is completely contrary to the teachings about disease and its transmission in the Bible but we don't hear demands for the teaching of Biblical disease theory. Why not? If the Bible is right about disease, why do the literalists not take the medical schools to task?

The Bible is a book of religion. It is full of metaphor and cannot be taken literally, it has too many inaccuracies and contradictions for that apart from the metaphors. It is not a book of science and should not be considered to be so in any way.

Evolution is good science and is the only explanation for the diversity of species that takes into account all the evidence we have.

"heard that at the end of his life he actually desided to be a christian himself and thats the part everybody leaves out, but thats jus wha i heard from like 6 different people who studied it for some project or somethin."

Darwin was a Christian and was studying theology when he agreed to sail with FitzRoy as his companion on HMS Beagle. He lost his faith later on, not because of his understanding of evolution but because of the death of his daughter. Despite the myths told by creationists he never regained his faith nor did he recant any of his ideas on his deathbed.

There are some excellent sources on the web that will explain evolution clearly for those who have little idea. You should start with the Talk Origins Archive and look at the FAQ.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 4

Interesting question, although Im not quite sure if you're asking which is true or which is more accepted by me. Origins is an interesting topic no matter what side of the fence you peer from.

It is interesting to note that many of the great "pioneers" of Science were deeply rooted in christianity and for the most part thier study of science was directly related to the faith that they held. One particular name that jumps readily to mind is that of Newton. My point is that Im not sure we can truely seperate science (aquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, that is, observable, measureable gathering of data) and the belief that there is some creator that made all the observable material that we have on hand. I mean the Scientific Method itself was first introduced by folk that were certain that by Ontological argument you could prove the exsistance of God. (Rene Descartes iirc).

At any rate, Darwin's theory and thats what it is, a theory, is based very very loosely on some pretty significant ifs as he so much as states himself. Also the way these assumptions or ifs came about was by his visit to an island where he noted large variety in spiecies. This as a basis for change from species to species has no foundation however. There is no observable evidence to support the macro evolution that is so prevelant in society today. So the logical thing to do would be to belive that the things we observe were put there not by chance but acording to planning. The same as if you saw a car in a wood, you would not say that it was there because of the result of some meteor hitting a nearby iron mine. You would logically conclude that someone put it there.

So it is with all the grand scenes we view in all the sciences, they are there for a reason. We must seek out the one who put these laws, hills, streams, oceans, stars and all the other grand delicacies of nature there.

My own opinion? Though many of you may disagree, and it is your perfect right to do so, but my conclusion is obvious. It is Jesus who set these things in motion, and it is He who masterfully keeps all the universe in His hand, He who directs the stars with less than a thought. If you only knew Him, I believe He would teach you what it is to know the Creator.

Answer 5

Please Charles Darwin is a meer man with a theory. Don't take it all that serious.

I personally am a creationist/evolutionist Meaning that whatever and however it evolved.......it was in the hand of the creator.
I don't believe that humans came from apes.
But I do believe in the evolution process. After all ,things are constantly changing via necessity or mutation.
Human's are humans because they were given souls. We are even changing. We no longer need the apendex and we don't really need our galbladders all that much. We are taller and living longer than generations before us.

As time goes by Science and the Higher Power are proving each other.

Answer 6

It doesn't matter what I prefer. What matters is the reality that I'm stuck with. I have a hard time believing all the crap that the bible tries to cram down my throat. There is far to much evidence to suggest otherwise. Even if I had a choice I'd say Charles Darwin. Simply for the reason that I refuse to worship a dictator.

Answer 7

To the truth, preference matters not. The biblical creation of man has not one iota of evidence supporting it, while the theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by mountains of evidence.

Answer 8

Science

Answer 9

Well now..having lived many years upon this mud ball called earth and listen to many arguments on this subject I find that evolution is the only logical REALITY...the other is a nice little fantasy that the weak & scared lean on, and fantasies are fun and warm places to go, but that is all any of them are or ever have been.

Answer 10

Well, the theory of evolution is much more provable and has been extremely well-supported by observation and experimentation. And it makes more sense.

But God says He will smite me and cast me into everlasting torment if I use the senses and the intelligence He gave me to believe in anything over Him, so I'll go with the bible thing.

Can I get a AMEN, my brothas and sistas!!!!???

Answer 11

Neither I kinda like the idea of the Divine creation. Its in Silver Raven Wolf's Ultimate Book Of Shadows For The Modern Day Witch. I must admit I prefer that idea best.