Creation or evolution? where did we came from?

Question

Help me because I have a debate tommorrow and our topic is evolution so help me pls!!!

Answer 1

personally I think both I think that God created us with the capability to evolve.

Answer 2

Evolution. Modern humans and modern apes share a common ancestor, although this ancestor lived millions of years ago. Science, primarily through evolutionary theory in this case, explains how.

Chick-a-dee's answer can best be described as a lie. Perhaps an unintentional lie, but a lie nonetheless, and one intended to deceive people, perpetuating lies, murder and mayhem, and causing us to miss the true beauty and wonder of the world around us.

Answer 3

Well, debates are about taking a side whether you believe in it or not and then convincing everyone to your side.  Do you know what side you are supposed to take?  

Also all you people that are saying that you can believe in both, well, you're not helping because that is not how a debate works, that is a disarming strategy that ameliorates the sides of the discussion and doesn't debate the sides.

Alright, I don't like taking the "creationist" side because it's not in my heart, so since you have left that part open I'll take up the evolutionist/scientific perspective.  I'll assume that for the sake of this discussion that you already know how "evolution" works as there are many scientific texts that describe this adequately.  Your next step would be arguing against "creation" and "religion" and putting them on the spot to prove/defend themselves.  The reason why this is important is because in a debate it is not good to sit on the defensive as is typical of evolution vs creation, but instead to go on the offensive so as to put the creationist perspective on the deffensive and to make them think outside the tidy little box of misconceptions that they have built up to fight evolution (see Chick-a-Dee's answer).  If all the evolutionists does in this debate is to sit on the defensive then they may not lose the debate, but they certainly can't win the debate either.  To go on the offensive I would describe how religion/creation is a human construct by showing its historical use and that the actual power held by creationists is actually imaginary and comes from the human incapability to understand the concept of "infinity" let me explain this in a nice short essay:

Evolution is backed by science, so how does science perceive creation?  Science would explain "God", "Religion" and "creation" as a human construct. These concepts were originally created to describe the unexplainable. It would rain 100 miles away and a flash flood would wipe out a village. Drought destroys a year's crops. An earthquake would hit, or a volcano would erupt. Someone would become sick unexpectedly. Prior to the application of science these experiences were quite scary for lack of understanding how they occurred. The natural response by early man was to hand the responsibility of such events over to a "greater being" and henceforth religions popped up all over the globe to allow man to move on when hit by the unexplainable. When more complicated social structures came about through the development of civilization, those who were in control of religion began to realize that they could control society and those who were in control of the state realized that they needed to have control of the society. Based on these forces, an age-old tug of war between religion and state developed. In some cases opposing religions were encompassed into the threatened state (Roman Catholic Church), in other cases the state would create new religious doctrine that was more acceptable to their people (Church of England) and in yet other cases States would try to create barriers from religion (USSR) based on the simple realization of calling religion out for what it is... a method of controlling people as shown in the frequently coined term "opiate of the people". This last model devoid of religion, however, did not succeed... why? It appears that people like to be controlled more subtly by religion then by brute force of a dictator's iron fist. The point of all this being that Religion was constructed adapted and restricted throughout our history simply as a means to manipulate society. If something terrible happened it was easier for the state to lay the blame off on "god" and to simply say "only god knows why this happened", we shall "leave it in the hands of god"... whatever expression is used, it's all the same, a scapegoat. Yet when society had successful years you can be sure that the state would claim responsibility and go about collecting their taxes as they talk about how their vague decisions improved the economy. Of course the church took their cut as well, 10% for Christians please! Where did that come from anyways, obviously God would have no need for financing!

With the advance of science the unexplainable began to be explained. An earthquake was no longer "gods bidding" and now the entire world knows which areas on the globe are more prone to seismic activity and can choose to live there or not and can construct buildings with this in mind to alleviate the amount of destruction that occurs. When the Tsunami hit Indonesia and when Katrina hit New Orleans a lot of Christians piped up that one event was an attack by God on the primarily Muslim Indonesia and that Katrina happened because of the sinful nature rampant in New Orleans. They forgot to mention that the French district was not badly damaged by the hurricane, or that many synagogues were left standing all over Indonesia due to their pillar style construction which did not create much drag from the onrushing water. At the same time Christians will rave about... say the church near Paricutin Volcano in the state of Michoacan, Mexico which, although badly damaged, was the only structure remotely recognizable after a lava flow wiped out the village there. Suddenly this "act of god" is proof that god is real because their church survives the natural disaster... hey wasn't it built of stone while the rest of the buildings in that town were made of wood? It is interesting to see how similar events are construed in completely polar directions by those biased by religion. All said, science allows a more appropriate and rational explanation of all of these events which were previously dominated by religious description. That is why there is a surge in people turning to science because people, on a whole, like explanations that have incorporate reason and allow for the development of knowledge through the scientific method that can lead to predicting and preparing for such disasters rather then mindlessly hiding under "god's wing" as we had for millennia. Now we put in Tsunami detection systems so that American or Japanese lives can be saved if one were to hit the pacific. As I mentioned before, buildings can be constructed to withstand earthquakes of a reasonable force, again of which America and Japan are of primary advantage while villages in Iran and South America... (Wait isn't S. America a bastion for Catholicism?) are being destroyed because their construction is still not as scientifically advanced.

In the end, the final battle between science and religion comes down to "infinity". Scientifically, we know what this term means, but within our finite human minds it is an impossible term to truly wrap your brain around. It is this single word that will ensure that religion pushes on. The reason why I pick this word is because no matter which force you believe to be responsible for our existence, they both depend on infinity. The Big Bang relies on an either A) an infinite time frame allowing for the expansion and contraction of the Universe in a cyclical pattern recreating itself in an infinite amount of space over and over an infinite number of times (if the mass of the universe is enough that gravity reverses our expansion) or B) has encountered one Big Bang and will expand for infinity but this begs the question of what was before the initial Big Bang. (If the mass of the universe is not enough such that our universal expansion is not reversed). Science/Evolution accepts this term as part of it's reasoning, Creation myths, on the other hand, rests solidly on "infinity", by doing what our species has always done, turning the unexplainable over to, you got it, "GOD the infinite" although typically words like omnipotent, or omnipresent are used to describe this infinity. I don't know if we'll ever be able to fully wrap our brains around this term, I doubt it, and so long as it exists as such a powerful word, God will still have the power that this word lends him.

Alright, you can refine this mini essay however you see fit, but the basic argument here is that:

Creation gets its power/mystique from the "unknown"

Science is about discovering the "unknown".

Science can not define "infinity" in a way that the finite human perception can understand.

So long as "infinity" is not understandable religions have a source of power.

Now the creationist is forced to either, change the subject, (lose the round) or else to dispute that "infinity" is a source of power for the creation myth.  This would require this person in being able to break "infinity" down so that the audience can understand it, which is impossible, so either way they lose this round.

If they try and dispute that the evolutionary/scientific myth also requires infinity in its description, then you point out how in science infinity is a measurable fact as shown by the existence of black holes in the universe.  Evolutionary theory does not borrow power from this term as it is simply a proven aspect within our universe.  The power behind the concept of evolution is based on scientific empirical evidence and does not derive its power from the "unknown" as creation does.

No matter how the creationist argues it, this line of thinking paints them into a corner, so they have to lose the round and change the subject.

Side note:

Even great thinkers like Einstein couldn't comprehend the term "infinity" as is shown by his disputing that black holes could exist even though his own formulas predicted that they should. Black holes have a lot to do with the concept of infinity as well and their continued discovery in the modern era of astrophysics is proof of the universe operating in concert with the concept of infinity.  Unfortunately the fact that infinity is now a detectable force in the universe, this doesn't help us define or understand infinity any better.  The combined mass of all the black holes in the universe is actually what will determine whether the universe will expand forever thus our universe has experienced one big bang or collapse back in on itself eventually harkening in the next big bang in a cyclical infinite pattern.

If you have a firm grasp of evolutionary theory then the opposing arguments should be relatively easy to dispute because all of the creationist arguments are based on misrepresenting the geological, archaeological or biological history of the planet.  If you see a creationist argument that has stumped you throw it my way and I'll break it down for you using real science.

Chick-a-Dee's arguments are so transparent that I will allow you to see through her conclussions yourself as an excercise towards debunking the creationist's counter arguments.  If any one of her arguments has stumped you let me know which one and I'll break it down for you using real science.  I won't do all of them for you, however, as the best way for you to become strong in this field of thought is for you to think through these concepts yourself.

Other offensive attacks against creation/religion would be the apparent contradiction between omnipresence and omnipotence if in-fact god is benevolent (why would he allow great suffering if he knows everything and can control everything).  This usually ends up in either a discussion about the "freewill of man" if you focus on human-human suffering, or in a discussion of God testing human faith if you focus on natural disaster-human suffering.  Either way it is a bit of a dead end discussion although to focus on natural disasters does make a pretty good smear campaign even if the creationists falls back on it being a test of faith, it still makes God look like an uncaring smuck as far as the audience/judges are concerned.

The final problem on this debate topic is that it is far too polarized.  No matter how good a debater one is, creationists will always close their ears to anything that opposes their faith.  And, evolutionists frequently dismiss creationist arguments because the dispute seems so obvious that it doesn't deserve the time.  Since most of the judges will already be of one side or the other then the debate is already fixed so long as the debaters can just give a weak enough argument to put the majority of judges who are already of their perspective onto their ballot.

Answer 4

As a anthropology student taking my first course in evolution in 1982, the professor (can't remember his name) announced on the very first day: "I do not believe in evolution". The class was stunned. Then he explained that he ACCEPTS evolution based on scientific evidence. He further explained that to believe in anything implies faith. He then said that he had faith that God created the conditions so that evolution was possible. He had faith that evolution was God's plan for creating. (What a brave, but not popular, stance to take back in 1982).  How refreshing! I had always accepted evolution, but felt in my heart that God was the One that made it (evolution) possible. When I say possible, I don't mean by chance or accident. In my opinion God knew exactly what He/She was doing. I graduated with a degree in Anthropology in 1984.

Now, 23 years later. . .

Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA. He thinks that science and religion can coexist in harmony. Collins, a former atheist as a science student is speaking publically about how evolution and God can coexist in his recently published book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Collins asks: Does science necessarily undermine faith in God? Or could it actually support faith? Beyond the debates over the teaching of evolution, or stem-cell research, most of us struggle with contradictions concerning life's ultimate question. We know that accidents happen, but we believe we are on earth for a reason. Until now, most scientists have argued that science and faith occupy distinct arenas. But Collins's faith in God has been confirmed and enhanced by the revolutionary discoveries in biology that he has helped to oversee. He has absorbed the arguments for atheism of many scientists and pundits, and he can refute them. Darwinian evolution occurs, yet, as he explains, it cannot fully explain human nature -- evolution can and must be directed by God. His book offers an inspiring tour of the human genome to show the miraculous nature of God's instruction book.

In his book, Collins describes his preferred synthesis of evolution with Christianity, which he calls BioLogos. Collins' version sees God as having preplanned the process of mutation and selection at time's beginning, knowing it would produce humanity.

Collins rejects the arguements of atheists on the left and creationists and intelligent designers on the right. He urges the abandonment of what he feels are overliteral misreadings of Scripture. "I don't think God intended Genesis to teach science," he says, arguing that "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling." He also has little patience for the atheist scientists what are giving science a bad name.

Check out this TIME magazine article called Reconciling God and Science by David Van Biema (dated July 10, 2007) for more information:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

Good luck in your debate.

Answer 5

Such an interesting question!

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

Sometimes it is said that the fossil record shows a sudden generation of species at random points in time throughout the fossil record, and that such data poses a challenge to the theory of creation just as much as it does to the theory of evolution.

However, there can be various explanations for such questions that may arise during the course of any detailed investigation. For instance, many scientists believe that the evidence of the fossil record is simply the result of Noah’s Flood because their empirical demonstrations and flood models can explain all of the data sufficiently.

Furthermore, it is possible that the fossil record is actually a reflection of two catastrophic floods.

Moreover, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility and/or death. Therefore, we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life-forms, perhaps even new species; the Bible only limits changes in life-forms to basic “types” or “kinds.” That is why, for example, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat mutate into a horse, no matter how much time you allow in the evolutionary equation.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

(5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

(9) Recent discoveries in astronomy also prove that the universe was created, not evolved. For example, the presence of microwave radiation throughout the universe proves, according to scientists, the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition.

Likewise, the fact that the galaxies of stars are shooting out into space away from each other indicate a common point of origin at the beginning of their existence, once again proving the theory of creation.

Evolutionists sometimes argue the universe is "oscillating" in nature, meaning that the galaxies of stars expand and contract continuously in the amount of space they occupy, thereby restarting the process of evolution at the beginning of each expansion cycle.

But this is impossible because astronomers have discovered that the galaxies of stars in our universe, which are shooting out into space away from each other, have less than ten percent of the mass which is necessary to generate sufficient gravity-pull to cause them to slow down and then contract upon each other. So, obviously the theory of an oscillating, evolutionary universe can not possibly be true.

Although the Bible provides very few details concerning the original creation of our universe, it does declare that God’s Kingdom will increase or expand in size forever (Isa. 9:7) (Isa. 60:22). That means there will always be an increasing number of planets forming within our universe forever, i.e., an ever-expanding universe which is consistent with the "big bang" theory mentioned previously.

(10) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.

Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

(11) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.

(12) Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!

Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.

(13) Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:

* Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the "Piltdown Man"

* Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the "Piltdown Chicken"

* "The Orgueil Fall"

* Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning "Western ape-man"

* Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

* Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."

The sad reality is that school children often are still taught that the aforementioned frauds prove the theory of evolution beyond any doubt.

Sometimes people will say that science and religion do not meet within the realm of human existence because they touch on completely different, unrelated levels of reality. Hence the assertion that science can not prove or disprove the validity of religious belief. Meanwhile, others will claim that science actually disproves the validity of Christian faith.

However, my immediate response to all such assertions is this. If the evidence of history, science, ethics, values and psychology did not prove the truth claims of biblical Christianity beyond any reasonable doubt for an intellectually-honest person, I would not even be a Christian.

Our worldview of reality should encompass the entirety of human experience in a comprehensive coherent whole.

Answer 6

My only problem with evolution is how such disparate species of mammals such as the elephants, manatees, tigers, dogs, armadillos, anteaters, sloths, kangaroos, whales, apes, porcupines, humans, etc. ALL have exactly the same reproductive organs.

What would, or could, have been the origin of this specific system of reproduction and how did it eventually encompass such an astounding range of species?

I don't see how a whale and a tiger could have evolved from a common ancestor . . . . and to say that all these species developed exactly the same reproductive system independently of one another just seems to be pure idiocy.

Just some thoughts you may have to deal with from your debate opposition. . . .

Answer 7

creation and evolution for me is two different words but totally the same meaning. Why? OK i well tell you why. In the bible God created the word in seven days while in science it is evolution were we human evolve from apes and so on. Take note.  Do not think it literally, one day in the bible could be a billion years. creation is from nothing to something means to say from 0 to 1, while evolution is from 1 to 2 3 4.... and so on. that's means before there is evolution creations is already there. you get it? i hope so. well its depend what side you are creation or evolution?