The difference between creation/evolution theories?

Question

-Both kinds start with (usually absurd) notions.

Examples:

-The earth was created by an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent being.
-Humans come from monkeys.

-Both start with a hypothesis and gain evidence to prove them

-Carbon dating, fossils, gene similarities, etc
-Scriptures

So...what's the difference?

Proof?

If so, what is your proof? Why do you believe that a book written by a scientist named Darwin is so much more likely to be true than a book written by about 70 authors and sharing the same theme?

Would you agree that what we believe is the result of starting with a guess and building off of it?

When I got saved, I started with a faithful belief that God was real, and he continued to reveal himself to me.

What do you think?

Answer 1

The bible isn't "evidence"... It's a story book. HUGE difference.

I'm happy that you have embraced religion and that it provides meaning to your life, but that doesn't mean you have to shut off your mind and believe every little dogmatic thing they say.

First off, read ANY text on the nature of the scientific method. Never mind evolution vs. creationism for now, just learn about the scientific method. It will enlighten you about hypothesis formation, theory building, scientific laws, what constitutes real evidence, the philosophy behind scientific inquiry (results need to be observable, and repeatable), ontology, epistemology, etc.

Think for yourself!

.

Answer 2

Evolution is still a theory, it is being tested and proved by scientific methodology, but it is still a theory and is taught as that. As the evidence is gathered weighed , scrutinized and validated we are slowly beginning to realize just how we developed as Human beings. But science is open minded, who knows what surprises lurk around the corner. As long as it can be irrefutably proved, we will accept it.

Creationism is being taught as fact, there is no need for scientific investigation as it is a truth founded on the word of God, as written in the bible. So it can never be challenged, any evidence found which disproves it are condemned as satanic trickery or Atheistic lies.

Hold on I thought i was dealing with an intelligent inquisitive Christan individual then I saw this. And realized that old troll was at work again.

Why do you believe that a book written by a scientist named Darwin is so much more likely to be true than a book written by about 70 authors and sharing the same theme?

So I am not commenting on it, I have put it up as a question. You-all deal with it.
Doug you should have put it up yourself :-)
I am going to lie down.

Answer 3

The humor is that both sides think the other side ignores half the evidence. That is how they're similar.
Their differences are that Creationists note that technical science is "observe and repeat," which cannot be done with the topic of our origin. We're left with a very few actual facts: fossils and where they were found. What those factual fossils mean to either THEORY is where all the arguments start. I'll say things such as DNA manufacture enzymes that then assemble the DNA, so one cannot be looking at a random origin for either: both must exist at the same time. I might add that a whole segment split off from the rest of the population and crossed into the Americas where they flourished without noticeable "evolution" and they are all still quite able to interbreed with any of the other humans they spent tens of thousands of years being separated from. The evolutionist will say that proves nothing, look at the dating mechanisms we have here . . . and you really expect me to believe that book has been kept intact for, what, 6,000 years? The Upanishads are older than that!
In sum, the other similarity is that neither side is willing to listen to the other. Sigh.

Answer 4

Evolution is not just for plants and animals it works for ideas as well. Early man believed the Sun was God and that a dragon swallowed the moon during an eclipse. Man learned some things and made observations and adjusted his beliefs. Later he believed vehemently that the Sun revolved around the Earth (for religious reasons). As we gather more knowledge, our beliefs change, evolve, mature. Now we know a lot more about how we came to be and it is time to evolve again. Accept the facts that can be proved and adjust our beliefs according to what we are comfortable with until we learn even more.

The Grimm Brother also took many of the popular stories and collected them into one book.

Answer 5

First of all, scriptures do not constitute evidence. The reason for this is that the scriptures were written by mysterious people under mysterious circumstances and copied and translated an unknown number of times by an unknown number of people. The fact is, the scriptures have no realistic credibility.

Secondly, we can believe a book written by Darwin because the book was written in recent memory and because he fully explained his methods and findings. The contents of his book can be verified through experimentation.

Lastly I disagree that what we believe starts with a guess. We start with our own feelings and thoughts and go from there.

Answer 6

First you need to learn much more about evolution. The few statements you made prove you know very little about the subject.
Secondly, to even call creationism a theory is absurd. A theory IS NOT simply a guess. A theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Finally, the creation myth is a story with absolutely no basis is reality or fact.

Answer 7

Actually, the Darwinian theory is much more complicated than "we came from monkies." Evolution involves billions of years of natural selection and changes in the Earth. And Darwin is not the only one who believes in his theory compared to these "70 authors". Many many people believe in the Darwinian theory but they read about it first and not make absurd accusations about something they know nothing about. AHEM.

Oh wow. Creationism is way different. How does one even start with creationism? How can you trust what these people write about when they have nothing that's provable to back it up?

Answer 8

I have viewed how both sides look at the evidence for evolution and the fact is Evolutionists make more assumptions than scientific Creationists. Micro-evolution is acknowledged as a scientific fact by creationists but, macro-evolution (a species evolving into another new species) has NEVER been observed and Requires making assumptions. Finally, most evolutionists never even look at the scientific creationists view, while the creationists have looked into and been educated about evolution.

One example of how the two interpret data pertains to anatomical similarities. The forelimb of a man can be compared bone for bone to the flipper of a whale or the wing of a bird. An Evolutionists looks at the evidence and interprets it as, "Common ancestor." A scientific Creationist looks at the same evidence and says, "Common design." Now, who is making the assumption? There is no assumption in saying "Common design" because it is a statement of fact. However, to say "Common ancestor" is a huge assumption that cannot be validated.

The "cause and effect" principle shows matter and energy could not have just appeared or always existed. Aquinas states:
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. (Great 19:13)

Aquinas also explains that nature is designed and the entropy law of matter and energy substantiates his assessment:
We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies… achieve their end not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God. (19:13)

Evolutionists assertions are riddled by chance happenings.

Answer 9

go to a museum, and open your eyes and look around you!!there isnt a single not 1 single solitary piece of hard evidence that backs up any of the hundreds of religions, but enormous amounts of HARD ecidence of evolution, and if you would take the time to read up on your history you will find that we didnt come from monkeys, all life was started by a single cell organism,so put away the fairy tale and use just a little common sense, researchers at nasa are looking at other planets to see if there is any evidence of water,, ya know why?? ill tell you why,, because if there is water, life will find a way, so enjoy your religious beliefs, whatever they are, buddha,ala god jesus muhammed whatever, people see what they want to see, dont mistake your thougthts with jesus talking to you, ya might get the label of crazy

Answer 10

They're not saying there is evidence indicating that it's possible that life started from micro organisms that came from space and mixed with gases on the planet creating life.

That sounds very possible; but keep in mind that they all do use the words, evidence indicating and possible.

Regardless to what one finds or feels is most likely true; it doesn't rule out the Creator. What ever exist was created by something or someone. How it was created, we may never know within life. Perhaps in death.

Answer 11

You're right, their both theories,but one has stronger evidience than the other.For example,just because someone wrote some scriptures that the earth was created in 6 days does not make it true.If I can say i'm 12 feet tall with a laser cannon on my chest but that doesn't mean i'm right.On the other hand finding out that 98%(something like that) of human dna matches chimpanzee dna is pretty solid evidence.Not to mention finding actual fossils of our ape-like ancestors.