Creation or Evolution? Where do you stand and why?

Question

just curious to see who believes i what as for me i believe in creation.

Answer 1

Evolution. FYI, it doesn't address the origin of the universe, so it can't really be compared to the creation belief.

Answer 2

Evolution.

Before I had taken Physics as my course in college, I was a creationist. In fact, I did not even specifically choose the course BS Biology because of the belief that I would only be taught the lie of evolution there and that I might even be brainwashed and loose my faith.

But through physics, through adequate knowledge regarding atoms, energies and interaction, I have found that all of my cherished "proofs" for creationsim are helplessly unscientific and that all the "disproofs" for evolution that I once so happily hurled at those "evil evolutionists" are all just pseudosciences dressed in scienficity. I understand those who do doubt evolution, for the theory of evolution, like the theory of relativity or the quantum theory, are theories that are difficult to grasp and actually need a lot of knowledge, practice, education and first hand training to undersant quite adequately. They are also difficult to grasp because their implications violate are common sense so much - relative time and shrinking spaceships of the theory of relativity, and particles which are waves and waves which are particles, and particles that could be everywhere for quantum theory. What I do not understand is why evolution is the only hated scientific theory by religious people? Why doesn't any one (except Einstein) hate quantum theory? Isn't it why Einstein said, "God does not throw dice", because of the quantum theory? Does not the quantum theory indeed imply that if there is a God, he indeed is a dice thrower? And doesn't uniformitarian geology imply an old age for the earth. Doesn't archeology provide proof that there is was no global flood of the magnitude reported by the Bible? Does not astronomy report a very old age for the universe? Does not radiometry in physics read through different clocks a really old age for the earth? Why then does no one hate geology or archeology or astronomy or radiometry, or why does no one hate physics for proposing such a preposterous and common sense-revolting fact that the rocks and people are made of of 99% empty space?

Answer 3

properly, creationism isn't an honestly concept, it is in basic terms a narrative. despite if the story became actual, it is nonetheless extraordinarily imprecise. yet pondering it a narrative does no longer advise that there is not any longer God or there became no creation. -undergo in recommendations that persons tended to pass over interpret maximum each prophesy of the outdated testomony, it does no longer be a shocker if we pass over interpreted the creation tale besides. This in spite of the undeniable fact that does no longer advise that evolution is suitable. i admire the concept of evolution, yet I heavily doubt that that's even remotely properly suited. possibly the conventional suggestions are, however the closer you look on the finer info, the crazier and much less conclusive the info is. -I anticipate that my grand babies will learn an fullyyt diverse rationalization of evolution that what we've been taught... and it may nonetheless be the two incorrect.

Answer 4

Wow...and these guys call Christians close-minded! As far as I can tell, it seems a lot of people argue in favor of evolution simply because they've heard that a lot of scientists say it's true. Well a few hundred years ago, nearly all scientists agreed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the planets, and we all know how that turned out. Yes folks, scientists, who are human and therefore prone to error, can be wrong. For the most part, it seems that most people agree with evolution because A) it's a popular, accepted viewpoint and, well, no one wants to be an outcast, B) they haven't taken the time to examine the theory more closely (and thus, haven't discovered the many flaws and holes in it), C) they have discovered the flaws and holes but willingly choose to ignore them since the only other option is intelligent design (aka - God), and let's face it - there either is a God or there isn't, and both ideas are frightening. Or maybe it's D) all of the above. Whatever the case, those that believe in evolution are fighting tooth and nail to try to keep the theory above water, mainly because no one likes to find out they've been lied to, and of course, no one likes to be wrong. Interestingly enough, you don't even have to use the Bible to point out some of the flaws in evolution; science and common sense can do that. For the sake of argument, let's just use the definitions of evolution as examples...

Five out of the six kinds of evolution have never been proven or observed (and the sixth kind isn't really evolution at all).

1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter; i.e. - "Big Bang"
The "Big Bang" theory goes against the "conservation of angular momentum" law; the origin of the Big Bang matter is unknown; space matter is not evenly distributed, etc. No evidence.

2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
How did 92 elements (plus the synthetic ones) evolve from hydrogen? No one knows.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution - origin of stars and planets
No one has ever seen a star or planet form. Not even intermediate stages of formation. There's evidence of star deaths (novas and supernovas), but what about star births? No evidence.

4. Organic evolution - origin of life
How did life get started from non-living material? Scientists have tried it in the lab (i.e. - the failed Miller-Urey experiments), but none have succeeded. No one has ever observed this occurrence. No evidence.

5. Macro-evolution - changing from one kind of animal to another
There is no evidence of any intermediate stages of evolution (aka - "missing links"). Example: No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. The dogs produced might come in a lot of colors, shapes and sizes (coyotes, dingoes, wolves, etc.), but in the end they're all still the same kind of animal: dogs. Again, no evidence.

6. Micro-evolution - variations within kinds
The description "variations" rather than "micro-evolution" is really more accurate since it's the same kind of plant or animal with varying features (i.e - different kinds of roses, different kinds of finches, etc.), but this is the one and only event that has ever been observed.

Also, radiometric dating - especially carbon dating - is unreliable (certain external factors have been known to affect carbon levels, resulting in inaccurate ages), the geologic column is wrong (petrified trees have been found standing up, running through multiple strata), embryology is false (Ernst Haeckel, the artist behind the fake embryo drawings, was convicted of fraud by his own university), the "horse evolution" model is false (proven wrong about 50 years ago), there are gaping holes in the fossil record, and on, and on, and on. The truth is right in front of them, yet they can't see the forest for the trees. But that's okay. God still loves them too.

Answer 5

Evolution.

Why would any god create a world he had to design from the ground up while there is clear evidence that this could be done by itself?

If evolution isn't possible, nothing would change.
And without change, we would never grow resistant agains virusses.
Humanity still shows mutations. The baby with the mutant muscle enzyme, causing him to grow more muscle tissue and at a faster rate.
Should the environment be alot worst to live in, that baby would be able to survive alot better then a baby who didn't have that mutation.
More offspring would be the result which would increase the chance of this mutation to continue to the next gen.

Really, the world is a increadibly work of art, why ignore it?
No religious story could compare to the amazing clockwork interaction that drives nature.

The bible states that god created the world and all of its animals. Who are we, mere human beings, to claim to know how he did that?
The ignorance to state that we know that god created life as we know it today?

Life and the way it adapts and evolves is the true juwel of creation, and I'd rather accept this work of art which lets itself be proven by evidence then this interpretation of the story of creation.

God gave us the wonder of 'life evolving', yet we drool around a fairytale created by ignorant religious people who rewrite the bible's meaning whenever they need to fit their needs.

Answer 6

We see through a glass darkly-someday it will be clear. Is it possible that both evolution and creation are neither 100% accurately understood or less then 100% wrong in some way? I do not reject either since I suspect they are likely one and the same.

Answer 7

I am the hated of these sorts of debates. I find validity in both points of view, and believe both.

I do believe that there was a"creation." Yet, on the other hand, I believe in evolution. I have studied biology going on 3 years, and been Christian my whole life. I think the earth was created, and that evolving of species is part of God's plan. There is irreputable (in my opinion) evidence that proves evolution.

I have my feet on both sides of the fence on this, but I have come to this after years of careful study.

Answer 8

As a biology teacher I am with evolution, as a Christian I am with creationism. I live a dual and hypocritical life:-) I do not feel that the two are incompatible. I give God enough credit that he could have caused evolution. I can't ignore the evidence I have spent years studying. Nor can I reject God. As an SDA evolution shakes the very foundation of our beliefs, but not my personal belief. We had an entire quarterly study on how science should be rejected, I couldn't attend b/c the stupidity was appalling and my husband feared I would be disfellowshipped for speaking my mind! As a teacher when I teach the evolution unit I get death threats and hate mail. The JW students bring me books and Baptist pastors send me letters saying the church prayed for me last week. I had one student say her mother spoke in tongues about me at their church, but no one could interpret (I thought you weren't supposed to speak in tongues unless someone could interpret?!?). I acknowledge all with a polite thank you and live my life (I keep the hate mail and letters in a scrap book, I am hoping for at least 100 by the time I retire). I get SICK of the debate that rages over this. Most people that are against evolution have NO IDEA WHAT IT IS ABOUT!

Answer 9

Both. Because both are obvious. The universe is here. It wasn't always here. therefore it was brought into existence by someone/something that/who preceded it. Someone smart enough to design it and to create it from nothing. That was God. God was therefore the Intelligent Designer and the Creator. At the same time, we know for a fact that new species have replaced earlier species ever since life began on earth. Biological evolution is the only viable theory that explains what we know to be true.

Answer 10

Creation... modern scientific evidence.. oh yeah a bunch of scientists who want to be paid to tell you they found evidence, and give you the explination you want to hear, and thats all of a sudden evidence. Right... Why dont you think about how much evidence you've really seen that evolution is the way we got here.. I bet you havent seen anything at all.. At least the bible has made it 2000 years without disappearing.. How many athiest and agnostic theories have been found to be wrong over the years... too many.. yet the belief in god stays the same, and the ancient text stays the same... So just go on believing that you evolved out of a self replicating organism.

Answer 11

Evolution.

It is a sound scientific theory. If you want Intelligent Design taught in schools as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution, you will need to have alternate "Intelligent" theories to be taught for all scientific theories (Intelligent Falling as an alternative to the Theory of Gravitation as an example). A list of these theories can be found on the link.