Creation or Evolution?

Question

Simple one or the other. Let the debate begin!

Hmmm... you both construct a good argument... consider this, 'in the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded.' Good old evolution eh?!!

Hey, PC king. The above is sarcasm... you know, to prove a point on how ridiculous evolution is? Duh!

Answer 1

Creation, people and things didn't evolve. After creation things did change, but not rapidly and not over millions of years, just in God's time in the way He wanted. And all those fossils everyone thinks are billions of years old, sorry, they were from the Genesis Flood.

Answer 2

Hmm,

I'm no expert at Evolution or Creation, but i just read an answer on this topic that has made me think. Someone has stated that they believe the world was created in 6 days, but the counter argument is that 6 of God's days could be unequal to ours. Now, wasn't the bible written by a man?? So his reference to the world being created in 6 days must surely mean just that? lol

Also, i have been a believer in Evolution for some time, but there have been some valid points raised which does make you think.

Keep up the good work people, it is in our Creation/Evolution to debate these things!!! ;-)

Answer 3

Silk Roses, I became a Christian, then a biology teacher in that order. I have always been scientifically minded and at times that has bought clashes with my faith.
I teach evolution as theory and try to encourage my students to read all they can, weigh up the evidence around them and come to their own conclusions, it is all we can do as it is not a question that is going to have solid answer anytime soon.
My own view is this. God is all about relationships. If he creates a world that doesn't work it detracts from relationships. I think to deny evolution as a work of God is to deny the beauty of it. Think about it, 4 chemicals put together in chains coding for 20 or so amino acids (in humans) which are then put together to form an almost infinite variety of proteins that generate the massive variety of life on Earth. Life which is compatible (in terms of being able to be assimilated by other organisms) because of the underlying simplicity.
I'm sorry, but the fossils are not from the flood, they are millions of years old. The evidence is there to see. It can be denied, but that won't make it go away. If you don't like fossils, the easiest place to start is probably sea floor spreading evidence.

A pastor at one of my old churches used to keep a 200 million year old fish fossil on his desk. He said it was "to annoy creationists".

I think we have to accept that when God gave inspiration to the author of Genesis, he was aiming at humanity where it was at that time. If he had started talking about RNA, DNA bacteria etc I think there may have been some confusion at the base of Mount Sinai.

God created a world, knowing it had to be dynamic or it would turn into essentially a flat ball of mud. In order to deal with a dynamic world he had to create, dynamic, changing, adaptable life.

This is only my view, but you asked, so I answered.

Keep safe.

Orinoco

Answer 4

This debate is most prevalent in certain, generally more conservative, regions of the United States, where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars. While the controversy has a long history, today it is mainly over what constitutes good science, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education....

Answer 5

The only thing this question will prove is just how much people are ill and uninformed about science.Jimmy trots out the old debunked tornado through a junkyard argument.Its false for more reasons than ill bother posting here.Natural selection is NOT random.Then we get a Darwin quote mine.Quote mines are where little snippets of a quote are used in a misleading manner.if you actually continue reading what Darwin said.He goes on to explain how small changes could eventually lead up to a complex eye and uses examples of living organisms.also,microevolution is small changes.What process stops micro changes from accumulating till we get a new species?pcking thinks we only use 10 percent of our brain.this is a myth.though different parts of our brain serves different functions.He says we should be more supreme whatever that means.Bacteria are far more simpler than humans yet that very simplicity allows them to survive in almost every condition imaginable.They can reproduce very quickly and efficiently.Evolution is a process by which heritable traits are passed on.Sometimes various mutations occur that will be beneficial to survival.

Answer 6

Evolution

Answer 7

There is some serious misunderstanding above about what exactly science is.

*Everyone* has exactly the same evidence which exists in the present. Operational science involves using the scientific method - observation, hypothesis, test, repeat, etc.

Ideas about the past (creation or evolution) are best described as historical science. They are not subject to the scientific method since noone was there to observe it. (Except the Creator who has given us his eye-witness account.)

So ideas about the past are based on people's assumptions about the past, their worldview. Creation and evolution are two hypotheses about the past based on different worldviews.

The Creation/Evolution debate is absolutely not one of religion v science. It is the science of one religion against the science of another religion.

It is sadly common to dismiss creation as non-scientific. Actually, it is unscientific bigotry to dismiss the possibility of creation a priori, which is what many evolutionists do. Eg above.

It is worth remembering that many of the greatest scientists of all time were creationists - Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Pascal, Kelvin, Maxwell, etc.

One's beliefs about the past do not preclude being a brilliant (or otherwise) scientist in the present.

For those that are not closed minded, try finding out what creationists actually believe! They are a lot more open-minded than most evolutionists. And they understand evolution a lot better than most evolutionists!
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830/

Answer 8

NO they both don't give good arguments as if we were SUM how supposed to come from evolution then tell me this


why have we stopped evolving surly by now if this whole evolution thing was try we would have evolved into something more supreme by now ....


you telling me evolution happened just to create us like this ?


i think not scientist say most of us only use 10% of our brain 10% out of 100% now if evolution was true we would have all evolved by now and be using at least 70% of our brain power


then you have the creation theory lets face it some one created us we are 2 complex to just have evolved or to have just sprug up there has to be someone something .......there are alsorts of religions where people try to put a face to a name .....looking for an anser now i belive there is something out there some one ....weather we can honestly put a name to a face is a diffrent story

Answer 9

They are not mutually exclusive.

I believe God created the universe in 6 days. But what is a day when the sun and earth don't exist yet. A day can equal a billion years to God who is outside time.

I also believe that God built evolution into this universe. Who else can create such diversity?

Answer 10

If I have to choose, I'll say evolution. I really don't like the idea of leaving a creator completely out of it but I don't like any of the well defined options that include a divine entity either. So, I vote for the big E.

Answer 11

how about dogs.

basically all the dogs we have now came from one kind of dog. i know their not different species. we've just been selectively breading them for a matter of thousands of years. imagine what would happen over hundreds of thousands of years , they'd probably change so much that they would become different species.




you make a good point about it just exploding from nothing. how can something explode from nothing. but i dont think they say it was just nothing. do they really say that?