Evolution or Creation?

Question

ligit answers will get best. And give me reasons...I'm interested.

Answer 1

evolution is fact based, creation is the greatest fiction novel ever written.

Answer 2

Evolution is going on all around us in both the animal kingdom and plant life. The scientific proof means alot more than just belief. There was a lot of work and millions of years worth of evolution to get us to where we are, not just some magical being snapping his fingers to create the human race and completely ignoring the millions of years of prior animalia and vegetation.

Also most people make the common mistake that we evolved from primates when actually it is more likely that we both share a common ancestor.

The answer is evolution.

Answer 3

The only argument against evolution is that the creation of new genes has not been observed. Assuming that the creation of new chromosomes is possible it is only a matter of time before a gene that helps the organism survive is created and the survival of the fittest takes over. This would eventually cause new species with attributes that would be environment-specific.
Obviously creationists believe in god, as i assume you do. Given that god does exist and can create anything and/or everything he wants, could he have not created the universe in the exact order so that it would be possible for the environment to create the organisms that exist. He would've known exactly how to create the universe to make the organisms precisely as they are now.
Pure creationism (were people accept blindly what the bible tells them without thinking) is more a argument of if god exists and wrote the bible. if he did it is non-refutable that creation is right, but i will leave that discussion for another time.

Answer 4

Funny how many say evolution is the biological advancement of life into higher life forms. Perhaps someone of those people could point me to the evidence how life evolved from non living matter. Are there scientist who have created life?. Where did the matter that makes up the universe come from?
Evolution cannot answer these questions.

Answer 5

There is no reasons I could give you for creationism, because it has not one scintilla of evidence in support of it. Evolution, the change in allele frequency in a population over time, is an observed fact that can be quantified. The theory of evolution by natural selection, explains this fact. I do not like typing, so go here and learn the truth.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 6

creation.many scientist believe in the "big bang theory".that a sigularity just suddenly exploded and the universe evolved into galexies stars planets and ect.if thats true where did the sigularity come from that exploded,it didn't just form out of absolutly nothing.

the other theory is the static state theory,that the universe is eternal and was always here and will always be here,but something have to have happened to have created the univese.

well after thecreation of the universe an animals on earth came to be they evolved to fit their environment but the universe was create by something or someone who i like to call god

Answer 7

Yes, God created us thru evolution. Just say yes to both. The creation story is a parable just like the way Jesus taught.
Peter quotes Psalm that to God, a day is thousand(s) of years. Paul says to look at the evidence that is front of us. He speaks about the evidence of Jesus but it can apply to this subject.

Answer 8

Why cant it be Evolution and Creation? Does that not make better sense?

Answer 9

You are asking a question that has been argued for over a century. It's basically an argument between people with religious views and those that have scientific views.

The two views are seen in the theories of creationism and evolution. In brief they are:

"The ideas of "creation science" derive from the conviction that God created the universe—including humans and other living things—all at once in the relatively recent past. However, scientists from many fields have examined these ideas and have found them to be scientifically insupportable. For example, evidence for a very young earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of rocks. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science. Indeed, U.S. courts have ruled that ideas of creation science are religious views and cannot be taught when evolution is taught."
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

"Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today."
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

When evolution is discussed, much of the creation science argument focus is on the fact that it is a "theory or idea." The creationism argument then suggest that each idea is as good as any other so a "fair" hearing would give people the chance to decide on their own. (Kippling once reported a village that voted that the earth was flat.) However:

"Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html
It should be noted that in 150 years none of the basic tenets of evolution have been found to be invalid.

A common comment is that man "descended from the apes." Consider:

"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia."
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

There is yet another issue. The version of creation as found in the bible is only one of hundreds of creation tales. Most groups of humans have their own explanation of how the world came to be. Those of my Scandinavian ancestors differ greatly from those of, as example, the Hopi, Navajo, or Iroquois Native Americans.

The real problem with intelligent design is most of the "research" being done is attempts to find problems with evolution. Consider: who exactly is the designer that keeps getting credit for doing everything? Where did the designer come from? How did the designer make such poor constructions. I've a bad back that could have been better designed. Finally, who designed the designer?



http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/front.html

Answer 10

there is only one truth.
Saying why cant both be true is a copout.
Sad to note that creationists are still out there procreating and indoctrinating the future generations.