which do you believe the darwin's theory of evolution or the story of adam and eve from the bible?

Question

defend your answer!

Answer 1

Haven't you heard? the debate is over, we have the fossils, most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found.

A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling

Answer 2

Evolution is science which has been modified a little since Darwin's day but is now one of the most robust scientific theories there is. It is stronger and has more evidence than either of the theories of gravity or germ theory of disease. The story of Adam and Eve is a creation myth from a nomadic tribe and has no credibility whatsoever. It is not supported by any evidence at all.

I do not believe in evolution any more than I "believe" in any other science. I accept the evidence and test the theories against the evidence. Belief doesn't come into it.

Answer 3

Darwin's theory is complete bogus. The Bible "story" is completely true. As you may have heard, there is much evidence that this world must have had an intelligent designer, and it did. Scientists say that the bird came from the dinosaur...How did that happen?! A couple of bones don't prove anything. Those scientists said the whale came from the cow a long time ago after they found a bone. One bone! One bone is not "evidence". In fact, there has been no solid evidence that the evolution theory is true. There hasn't been any scientific evidence for creationism, either; it takes a lot of faith to believe in it. It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution, too, though I'm not sure what kind of faith! (evolution is basically a religion for those who refuse to believe the truth - that God created everything and is the sovereign power in all matters) Besides, the evolution theory is just that - a THEORY. Not a law (like Newton's law of motion,which has been PROVEN), but a theory. It has not been proven to be correct. There is no proof because it's just a load of baloney! (I'm trying not to assume that you're evolutionist, but if you think you have "proof" for this evolution theory, post it on Yahoo Answers; if you come up with any supposed proof, I will prove you wrong! I'll be watching...)

Answer 4

Darwin's theory is more correctly described as the theory of natural selection. It is now a very old scientific proposal, and one that has been shown to be flawed. However his research and studies greatly advanced the studies of life sciences and much of what he postulated has been shown to be valid.

Unlike many other Christians, I don't believe Natural Selection and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive explanations for how we came to be. I think the story of Adam and Eve is a fairly subtly couched description of how man is a flawed creation. We tend to focus more on the creation than on the sin that describes man's being through time.

Adam and Eve may have been real people or may simply be prototypical human characters who represent early mankind. Either way there is much validity to their story. I see them as very much like me and people I know.

The Book of Genesis deals with many things. A small fraction of it deals with Creation. You would be wise to review the entire book and weigh the importance of each part of it. It describes many situations which probably happened over many thousands of years. It describes people who had great faith and it describes people who were severely flawed. In the end we should have a pretty good idea of the differences between good and evil, which is really the main part of what the Bible is about.

Answer 5

No one seems to understand that when the story of Adam and Eve was told or written , was written for a population that could not understand beyond their limits of their society and understanding, much from their lack of general knowledge , think about it !! the earth was thought to be flat till the 14 century , how could they understand the possibilities of evolution or the possibilities of us being descendants of outer civilizations ? any one professing that notion would have been considered a witch , so this story of Adam and Eve is a mythology no better than Santa Clause and the leprechauns of Ireland , is about time we educated people of this century see the truth and stop believing in stories created for our many ,many ancestors .

Answer 6

Neither. the two techniques have not got any benefit to them. think of approximately it. Eve replaced into created from the rib of Adam. in simple terms idiots could have faith in something like that. on the different hand Charles Darwin never did instruct that we evolve from the apelike creature. It replaced into in simple terms a thought, no longer shown. So until we arise with a actuality, save your strategies open is appropriate.

Answer 7

The story of Adam and Eve is an early attempt by primitive humans to understand the origins of the world. It is nothing more than a story, like the other thousands of creation myths created by early people.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory of how live evolved, gradually, and over the course of billions of years through natural selection. It is supported by mounds of fossil evidence and by genetic understanding.

In response to the previous poster, I will include a few references to this evidence by scientist Ian Johnston, written for the layperson:

"The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals."

This was simply one article I found out of thousands. Evolution is supported by scientific evidence. It may not be easy or pleasing to grasp, but it is more real than fables.

Answer 8

They are both the same. They are just people with different ideas trying to explain what actually happened. More than likely, neither theory is completely accurate.
Actually I believe evolution is the system God used to create the world.

Answer 9

i will answer your question with common sense and absolute simplicity:

evolution is true, its fact. if adam and eve were real then we would be products of rampant incest and we would only be one race. we would only be one race because if evolution werent true then are skin color couldnt change to adapt to our enviroment. also christians and atheists never take the time to think that maybe evolution is the answer to HOW not WHY.

Answer 10

Darwin. Generations of scientists have defended it just fine, thank you.