Curious....Evolution or Creationism?

Question

Which one do you believe in.....

Personally I believe in evolution.....it makes more sense to me....I am more of a science type guy (engineer) anyway.....what about you guys?

Answer 1

Evolution.

the definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." the PHYSICAL or MATERIAL world...not the supernatural or immaterial.
What the opposition wants to do is redefine science so they can use spirtual or any type of explination for the universe and whatever we can find in it.

What the opposition does not realize is that if they are successful in redefining science to include non-scientific material it will open the doors for astrology, wicca, etc in the SCIENCE classroom


Questioner> you went off topic and no where did anyone say all of science itself rests on Evolution....not even the creationists.
....but comparing Engineering to Biology is kinda like comparing Particle Physics to Geology. Which is to say...not a valid comparison.
Anyway your idea is not correct. Just because INANIMATE objects require enginering to become technology is not at all similar to ORGANIC LIVING CELLS. One is a hunk of stuff that does nothing until applied in an order and another is a living thing that breeds.
Believe what you want though, the arguments have been proved false many times, and people still take the path of least faith. I mean to think Evolution is beyond the scope of God is kinda stupid in my way of thinking but yet people still seem to equate Evolution with people becoming cannibals and God being a monkey....oh well

Answer 2

I believe in Evolution, though I don't think that it's entirely unlikely that both can exist. Creationism begins, evolution continues. Evolution is common sense. Also, I am Agnostic.
It makes more sense to you because you are smart.
A. Spears, what "faith" does it take to look at evidence and proved theories? And yes to echo... Travel E. Please research Evolution if you want to make an informed decision, or at least an intelligent answer.

Answer 3

listed right here are the stairs of the scientific approach in gentle of the creation thought. a million. define the question the place did we come from? 2. convey jointly suggestions and supplies (word) go searching and be conscious the complexities of existence that scientists nevertheless have not been in a position to verify. 3. kind hypothesis We could have come from smart layout. 4. carry out test and convey jointly archives No scientist so some distance has been in a position to create existence. No scientist has been in a position to make the relationship of macro-evolution. No test has shown that an twist of fate can create complicated existence varieties. 5. examine archives that could desire to be self explanitory. 6. Interpret archives and draw conclusions that function a commencing element for clean hypothesis there is not any evidence that a author exists, yet there is plenty info for smart layout. 7. positioned up outcomes 8. Retest (often finished via different scientists)

Answer 4

Evolution 100% - creationism doesn't make any sense at all

Science answers questions in a reasonable way wer as wiv creationism the answer 2 everything is orientated around an unproven higher power

Until there is proof that God exists and Creationism is the true theory, i'm sticking wiv wat is already proven and possible!

Answer 5

I don't believe in either. I think evolution takes as much faith as creationism. You can't observe it, you can only see the end result, and everything inbetween comes from books written by people who say "this is the way it happened."
I popped into this life at some point I don't remember, that's all I need to know.

Answer 6

Evolution, because I'm not scientifically ignorant.

Evolution is a supported scientific theory. Creationism is a non-supported non-scientific hypothesis.

Also, Travel-expert, Evolution doesn't say we came from apes.

Answer 7

Evolution. Its the only sensible option to an inquisitive educated mind. Creationism is too loaded with inconsistencies and unanswerables, whereas evolution can be backed up with cold, hard science.

Answer 8

I believe God created man through the process of evolution personally. We need to think outside the box, because thats where God is.

Answer 9

Creationism

Answer 10

You mention science... Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all. In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”

The rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution, either. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed? Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance.

Many great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.

Consider Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible.

Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, also believed the Genesis creation account.

So also did the Dutch geologist Nicolaus Steno (1631–1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy.

Even in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, there were prominent Bible-believing English scientists, such as chemists Andrew Ure (1778–1857) and John Murray (1786?–1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759–1850), and geologist George Young (1777–1848).

James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Indeed, Maxwell’s equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution.

Today there are many other Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe in God. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields, which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture.

John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global Flood recorded in Genesis.

Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian.

If you care to know more, read this (by Dr. Michael Houts, who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering):
http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3511