creationism versus evolution?

Answer 1

either can be justified. It all comes down to what you chose to believe. Let me ask this : If so many people such as the ones responding to this question do not believe in God or a higher power then....why the hell when a catastrophe hits do so many hit their knees in prayer? That ole wishful thinking again?

Answer 2

I recently answered a similar question from another Christian participant of R&S stating that the argument is heavily weighted on the evolution side due to science. One of my points is that Christians and other Theists accept most forms of science, medicine, technology, meteorology etc.. and benefit from its findings. For instance a Christian will go to the store to buy asprin, which is was created as a result of science, they will also listen to the weather man on the news and expect that the forecast is going to be somewhat accurate. But when it comes to geology, physics, anthropology, archeology etc... they have decided that these branches of science are made up and are of little to no value?

I promptly received a message telling me that there are many Evolutionists who have turned to Creationism and they could tear apart the theory of evolution. I was told that Evolution was an elaborate ruse created by biased scientists who wanted to live their lives without consequence.

I was not sure how to respond, so I asked for example of these evolution busters, and a website with more information....... so far no reply.

I'm still sticking with evolution, until other more compelling evidence is provided. I appreciate that the Bible is a great book, but using it as a source of proof, doesn't work for me.

Answer 3

You can not disprove creationism...to a creationist.

Watch me disprove it to everyone else.

Creationists argue that the earth and universe was created in 6 days roughly 6000 years ago (the year 4004BC actually)

lead isotope dating findings:

if a rock has some uranium in it, it will also have lead isotope(s) in it. Uranium decays into lead-206 or lead-207 at a fixed rate. That is, its decay rate never EVER changes, no matter how big or small the rock is, no mater how old it is; it NEVER changes. So, the ratio of lead isotope to uranium changes at a fixed rate starting at when the rock was formed; that is, when raw material crystallized into solid form. This is a reliable method of deturmining a rock's age, accurate to within 0.0004%. Currently the oldest object known that was measured in this way is a meteorite, believed to be left over from the formation of the solar system, that fell in Mexico in February 1969. It was found to be 4.566 billion +/- 2 million years old. It is the oldest object that can be held by human hands.


I have heard creationists argue that the cause of the red shift of galaxies no one really knew; even though any first year physics student really does. I've heard creationists argue that ANY evidence that contradicts their beliefs are just tests of faith from god. So really, there's no point arguing about it to someone who is incapable of reason or common sense.

Answer 4

It does teach evolution. You open with a premise that's purely fake. Genetic info is the final we've and it proves evolution rather plenty definitively. Tadpoles to frogs and caterpillars to butterflies isn't evolution that's metamorphosis. You sort of allude to the "style" argument. nicely if i can over the area of 10,000 years breed a wolf right into a spaniel does that qualify as evolution. i think you will argue that they are the two canids and which would be superb. even though enable's shop going. quite of 10,000 years enable's come lower back in a hundred,000, or one million, or 10 million. would you nevertheless argue that what you have is a canid? After 10 million years they may be so different from one yet another they won't be seen the comparable "style" no count number how some distance you stretch it. precisely how some distance would you stretch "style"? I as quickly as asked a creationist if placental mammals would qualify as a style? They mentioned confident considering they're all placental mammals. I then mentioned them that human beings, bats, dogs, whales, deer, tigers etc have been all placentals. it relatively is incredibly some "micro-evolution" is it no longer? in case you will say "issues shop the comparable uncomplicated make up", you need to define your words for sure, through fact meaning even though you sense "uncomplicated" ought to point at that superb 2d. human beings and elephants are certainly the comparable. they're mammals, they provide delivery to stay youthful, they have a strategies, a heart and a liver. as quickly as you get surpassed the obtrusive transformations we are surely the comparable. additionally, there are lacking hyperlinks. hundreds of them. Palaeontologists have extremely some lacking hyperlinks they do no longer understand what to do with them. purely google some. "There are no longer any lacking hyperlinks" isn't something better than a creationist mantra.

Answer 5

In Islam we believe that Allah the almighty is the Originator
of the heavens, the earth and all that is in it ,above it and below
it.God almighty created Adam [ peace be on him ] from dust
and science tells us today that many elements of Humans
can be found in the soil in lesser of in greater quantities.Allah the
almighty informs us in the Quran that He [ glory be to him ] has
created ue from a single pair of male and female.Is this a blind
belief or un scientific concept ? No because the Quran has yet
to be proven wrong in any aspect.Most of the scientific facts
present in the Quran is compatible with science with an accuracy of 100 percent.So logic states that if 80 percent of
scientific facts mentioned in the Quran are 100percent accurate
the balance 20 percent should also accurate which we place
in the ambigious section, like Heaven, hell, Angels. Jinn, day of
judgement ect, The evolution of man according to Darwins
concept is only a theory and not a scientific Fact.
As far as the creation of the heavens and the earth the Quran
agrees with science on the Big Bang theory and the Creation
of the heavens and the earth as described in the Quran is
very compatible with science.But because the creation deplicted
in the Bible, book of genesis is a HUge scientific error that does
mean that The facts of creationism mentioned in other holy
scriptures would be inaccurate.

Answer 6

Why don't Evolutionists who would like to practise a religion look at Unitarianism?
There are many famous past and present scientists, musicians, medics, crafsmen, writers, actors, etc who are/were unitarians.

Newton, Dickens, Wedgewood, Florence Nightingale, Linus Pauling, Pete Seeger, Christopher Reeve, the Darwin family, Frank Lloyd Wright, Kurt Vonnegut, Bela Bartok, Emerson, Joseph Priestley, Hazlett, Chamberline family politicians, etc.

Answer 7

Superstitution versus science.

Answer 8

There is no "vs". They are completely different subjects. Creation describes the origin of the universe where nothing previously existed. Evolution describes one biological process on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in the universe, which began billions of years after creation.
.

Answer 9

Willful ignorance versus the search for fact.
Superstition versus reality.
Mythology versus evidence.
Dogma vs. fact.

Take your pick.

Science is not at war with religion. However, literalists are at war with science. Not just biology...all science.

Answer 10

Ignorance Vs. Common Sense

Answer 11

Propaganda versus Intellectual Honesty