Evolution? Creation? ?

Question

Any good insights either way?

Answer 1

A combination of both.

Cheers !

Answer 2

Scientists, atheists and all the major religions, including Islam and most Christians, favour Evolution.

Answer 3

if you can't figure out a good explanation on your own... choose Creation, you don't have to be smart to believe in it.

Creationism, explanations for the really stupid.

examples:

1) "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"

answer:  "God made it blue, son."

2)  "Where did the Universe come from?"

answer:  "An old man in a toga 'spake' it into existance... just by wishing."

3)  "If God created everything, who created God?"

answer:  "Heretic!  Burn the witch!  Unbeliever!"

Answer 4

Here's an insight - evolution is a fact. Creationism is a myth. For the guy that said creationism sounds more feasible: what have you been smoking?

Answer 5

Evolution did happen, and it's still happening right now. Why do you think we have a tailbone? We don't have tails, but our ancestors did. Germs evolve. If it wasn't for evolution we really wouldn't get sick at all much. Once we got sick from a germ, our bodies' immune system would just learn how to block it and we'd never get sick. But, germs evolve, they get better at slipping through our bodies' immune system. So the germs would eventually die out. Basically, nothing would be alive right now if it wasn't for evolution. Evolution is basically adaptation over time. If evolution never happened, life wouldn't have existed on Earth. The Earth is changing, so we have to too.

Answer 6

Creationism with a different but real kind of 'evolution' that they don't teach in most schools.

Answer 7

dunno. Im doing year 12 biology right now n learning about it. I think that creation seems more feasible, but i dont believe in god. Now i dont no what to believe!

I should probably go n start study for biology test on evolution and creation tomorrow :(

Toodles!

Answer 8

First, it is a fact that life forms evolve. Therefore, evolution is a fact of life. The Theory of Evolution which details HOW things evolved from one creature to another still remains is hot debate even if you just look at the scientific community. So, while evolution does exist, the Theory of Evolution remains just that. And, explaining how life came about on a lifeless planet remains unexplained to this day. However, whether you are a creationist, evolutionist, or somewhere in between as I am, life did come about from a lifeless planet. Did there HAVE to be a God for it to happen? Who knows. But, from my own personal experiences in life, and from what I've learned in science about nature and just by looking at nature aestheticly, I have no doubt at all that there certainly is a God. The universe just seems too miraculous, elegant, orderly, yet complex to just be one big mistake.

And atheists will look at spiritual people and scoff at their beliefs, citing loopholes and inconsitencies and unbelievable accounts of real events as reasons why creationists and the spiritual are childish and believe without reason. Yet, if you took every sceintific theory, and compiled it into a book, even if you narrowed it down to just evolution or the Big Bang, you would compile a book larger than the Bible with far more unbelievable suggestions about reality than the Bible ever could. Need proof? Let's start with Einstien's theory of special relativity. In it, Einstein theorized that the universe is composed of an interwoven fabric of energy comprised of the three dimensions of space and the one of time, and that when matter or energy is present (which are equivalent under the E=mc^2 law) this fabric warps creating gravity, similar to if you were to put a bowling ball in a trampoline, the trampoline being the fabric of our reality, and the bowling ball being the mass creating gravity, and anything else in that fabric being effected by the gravity generated by the large mass. Even our bodies generate gravitational pulls which extend out to the futhest ends of our fabric of spacetime, traveling at light speed.

Need more? How about String Theory which suggest that all things are ultimately made up of strings of energy. You have atoms, then protons neutrons and electrons, then quarks and gluons, then finally strings of pure energy, and depending on the vibration of these strings depends on what the atom will be (iron, lead, gold, helium, etc).

How about the Quantum Mechanical Theory that we can walk through walls? Dr Brian Greene said in the video "Elegant Universe" that Quantum Mechanics works so well, it has gotten us to where we are today. QM has allowed us to make faster computers, celular phones, and even showed us how to split atoms. With all the theories of QM that we can experiement with, it has not made a single wrong prediction. Not one. But, QM also says that since we are made of atoms rather than being literally a solid whole person, then there is a small, yet finite and real chance we can walk through walls. If we are to believe that we can split atoms, then we MUST believe there is a chance one day that one of us can accidentally walk through a wall. Unfortunately, there is another probability in QM suggesting that whoever does go through a wall will come out the other end in a pile of blood and guts.

So, my point is that we must not discount something because some of it may not be true or wholly believable. Do I judge atheists for not believing in God? No. However, I do take offense when someone says that my believing in God is childish and blind. I have not allowed my spirituality to blind me to the facts which science has revealed. But, I find it funny that many atheists blind themselves to the possiblity there is a God simply because they are not educated enough to realize that science can be MORE far fetched than the concept of God.

Many atheists insist that religion should not be followed anymore since it has to adapt to scientific discoveries. Um, does science not do the same? Isn't that why scientists believe in dark matter, which is totally unproven? Sure, there is an unknown measurement in Einstein's equations concerning the total gravity of the universe. But, instead of trying to formulate a new theory like Einstein and Newton did, they create dark matter to force relativity and the Big Bang work out.

Now, I'm not saying science isn't a good thing. I follow the discoveries of science relentlessly. I find it absolutely fascinating. I see it as the study of God's infinite creation. If you don't see it that way, then that's okay. I have sat and talked to atheists who are educated enough to entertain my ideas without accepting them. And, I have done the same. But, I cannot tolerate people who are intolerant of either faith or reason. Here's the bottom line:

Without faith we trust nothing, and without reason we doubt nothing.

Too much faith and we trust too much. We blind ourselves and stray.

Too much reason and we trust no one, taking nothing as true, even the discoveries of other scientists.

So, do I believe in evolution or creation? I'm in the middle. I don't deny evolution exists, or has existed. Yet, I cannot deny God either. One is just as real to me as the other. Therefore, how can I follow the extremes of just faith or reason? In fact, I have found the most answers, the most truth somewhere in the middle. You will find more truth with moderation than you ever will in either extreme.

Take care and God bless :)

and sorry for babbling on. I just wanted my ideas to be clear enough to understand. Thanks for taking the time to read :)

Answer 9

http://video.rationalresponders.com/vide...

http://video.rationalresponders.com/vide...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/

Answer 10

Evolution only exists on microscopic levels. There is no evidence that it exists on macroscopic scales. So, therefore, how did we get here? Evolution is certainly not the answer. So obviously we were created

Answer 11

There is nothing but proof of evolution anywhere you look so I think it is safe to say evolution is a physical fact... Where and how it all began might be best left as a matter of faith because there should be no doubt we were created... I have no doubt we were created anyway - I mean the fact that we are here should prove that, right??

At least its my 2 cents...

Answer 12

Hi, contrary to some Creation is Fact, where did we come from, Apes? no, from a bog Bang in outerspace that somehow miraculously life started, load of rubbish. Just look at us mere humans and biologically how we are created, no accident the human body is a miracle when you go thru the birthing process how the s*x is will be determined. Let alone the animal species, how can anyone honestly believe that all the beautiful creatures are an accident and there is no creator behind it, can assure you creation is real, be fair and look at each Evolution and Creation make a judgement on your own merits not on what I say or an evolutionist may say. The proof is the, watch a woodpecker, study how the tongue curls behind the brain to protect it from shock, an accident or evolution? not a chance. Takes and intelligent being to create the things of this planet. Your choice go the Evolution route by all means, just give creation a fair go in your logical brain. all the best with your quest

Answer 13

I believe in creation. I don't mind if others don't agree with me. I believe in it because... how can you look at the beauty of both earth and space, and think it all happened purely by chance?

If anyone has any responses to what I'm about to say, or if i'm wrong, please tell me.

I was taught that new information cannot be added to DNA. So how did amoebas become trees, and other life forms? Mutations are a genetic loss of information, not the addition of it. To change from an amoeba to a human (eventually), new genetic information must have... been added. But that is not possible. That is the reason I do not believe in evolution.  

Answer 14

It's about both.

Something is created and then it is given to evolution to better it's self.

The process of creation and evolution go hand in hand. For an organism to adapt in it's environment, it is evolution. And for the organism to come into being it is creation.

An example of a beautiful woman or handsome man, is not just through evolution. For someone had foreseen that either one would come into beauty, a creator. Otherwise we all would be ugly in comparison to other natural things. All nature seems to have beauty as it was intended for us and others to make aware of. This is at the hand of an omnimous creator. Only something with consciousness and intelligence and the ability to see beauty is behind the creation of our race and other lifeforms. Therefore, it can easily shift to creationism, rather than evolution here. Evolution is time permitting, whereas creationism is an act through the will of a higher being.

i.e.: to populate the universe you create and the creation then proceeds to gain experience and evolves. Eventually the creation and creator become one, both are at the same level of existence.

Evolution is experience and outcome of the organism. Creationism is the act of creating the organism in order for it to gain experience and for it to have outcome in the universe.

Answer 15

Evolution and creations are NOT mutually exclusive, on the contrary, they complement each other, just as science and religion do.  The only religious group that has a problem with evolution are the Bible-obsessed chrystian conservatives in the USA.  There obsession about literal interpretation of the Bible and denial of evolution is economically and politically motivated, has no theological basis, and it is uniquely American phenomenon that exploits the ignorance and gullibility of the average uneducated American.

All large, global religions (Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism) have no problem with reconcilling evolution and God's creation.  Read this article - it gives a good insight about how the Catholic church deals with science.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-...

Answer 16

Evolution has some important advantages over creationism:

1. It is a very simple concept, based on observations.

2. It made predictions, which had been validated as technology advanced: Darwin predicting the existence of DNA long before it was actually found.

3. Creationism favors only the Christian theology and ignores all other religions. It does not respect other religions or creation myths  - some of them use multiple creators, others don't care about who created it, they explained what influenced it.

4. The difference between macroevolution and microevolution is plain semantics. Even creationists don't deny microevolution, but say: The same process can't create new species because a new species is a large step. But exactly that is wrong. It is no large step. When a river divides a population for example into two, these two populations don't mix anymore and evolve together. They take many small steps, often away from each other. At one point, you have a new species. And actually, the Bible already mentioned the current definition of species: Two animals belong to the same species, when they are capable of creating healthy offspring. The same process, by which Noah got told to take two of each...

Also, remember that history is full of disabled, dead and deformed individuals. Nature sometimes has to try again, if a cow with two heads can work.

5. There is no such thing as a minimum required complexity in evolution. The large step, creationists expect to be required, can actually also be done in many small steps. Look at a car. You might not believe, that a car has anything to do with evolution, but it is the same process: You once started with the invention of the wheel... added one more, at one point had four wheels, added a steam engine, created better wheels, replaced the steam engine by a lighter Otto engine, invented seat belts, airbags and pimp my ride - and there you are today. The evolution of the car.

The same happened with cells. A modern cell in a human is a complex thing, but it is not the most primitive cell. A bag made of lipids (fat) surrounding DNA is already enough. And DNA does actually create itself from very simple chemical reactions. Just like fat. But without the fat surrounding and protecting it, the DNA would get destroyed quickly. But once, DNA is protected, other reactions can happen to it, without this high risk. One such DNA-Fat bubble at one point learned to multiply - when is not known exactly, but one thing is known: It took nature almost two billion years from the first such chemical experiments, to successful cells. About 2.7 billion years ago, the first cells appeared. It took nature again 2.6 billion years from the first cells to the first human.

You can see the divine inside the fact, that the basic chemicals for life can get created simply in nature... but the history after the stuff got created was evolution.  

Answer 17

The question has started heavy discussions for decades and will certainly continue to do it for many to come. What is the general understanding today?

Well, it turns out that the chances for the universe to sustain life as we know it is one in a number so big that it requires 229 zeros to write it!

Then come the Intelligent Design believers to say that it simply can't be just by coincidence; it must be divinely designed.

Perhaps, but then there is the anthropic principle that says that the universe is observed as it is simply because it can.

The problem with Intelligent Design is how to avoid predeterminism. Because if God's hand has shaped absolutely everything ... when did it stop? And if it didn't then your father met your mother, thus enabling your existence, also as God's will, right? But then ... everything is already written because by all religions, God is not only omnipotent but also omnipresent; in the past and the future.

Now, for "young age creationism," those who believe the universe is only five thousand years old and was created in six days, it is called "cognitive dissonance;" the seeking of only one kind of information that departs from an objective mind. If it makes you happy, please do it but then, avoid reading about science.

Answer 18

evolution can be proven...

creationism can't...

i've always relied on the tried and tested science of our world for nearly all my life...

sorry but something that can be proven ALWAYS trumps something that can't...

both creationism and the after life was created by man (there is no evidnce of either) while the after life helped people not fear death, and helped with greiving of family members and friends (in the afterlife, they are still there.... so it's easier to accept then they're just gone forever.....) creationism answers questions that COULDN'T be answered when it was created... but modern science has answered the questions that went unanswered back when religion first started... such as were did the world come from, how did we 'appear' if we weren't always here to begin with or created by a magical deity....

IMHO creationism is just as ridiculous as say the mayans making blood sacrafices to help the sun travel through the sky and rise the next day, or that comets are a sign from the god's that something bad is gonna happen, or eclipses showing the same thing....

it's a primitive belief man made up when they couldn't understand the world around them.... we all know you don't have to make sacrafices for the sun to travel through the sky... why should this ancient belief be ANY diffrent? science has proven the world is nothing like what ancient man thought it was...

look at the idiot below me "creationism is a fact"... not it's not...

fact IS not belief....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/f...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r...

learn the diffrence so you don't sound so ignorant.

Answer 19

Biological evolution is the change in the average genetic makeup of a population of organisms.  

It is not -

1.  The origin of life.

2.  The big bang theory.

3  The theory of evolution.

Answer 20

Hi Alexa!

I'd pick evolution, for the origin of species.  That's the title Darwin gave his great book.

It's important to recognize the limits of this, however.  Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, and cannot explain it.  You frequently see Darwinists  resorting to conjecture, saying that since birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore life must have "evolved" out of non-life in exactly the same way.

Even the simplest modern forms of life, the viruses, are enormously complicated.  All life, all the way back in time as far as we can tell, has always been similarly complicated.  The genetic code has always been an extraordinarily complex digital code, like computers use.  It's very hard to see how non-life could have jumped the gap to a digital code.

No one today has an explanation.  Certainly not fundamentalist Creationists, the ones you see trying to take over school boards using their votes.  But neither do Darwinist atheists who, without the slightest evidence, simply imagine that the jump from nothing to a complicated digital code must somehow have occurred at random somewhere in the misty past.  The Darwinists often make exactly the same mistake as the Creationists do in this regard.

True Darwinian evolution is established scientific fact.  The evidence is compelling that all modern species evolved from simpler forms of life.  Darwinist atheists (and you see how I am distinguishing between true Darwinian evolution and "Darwinists," who attempt to misuse Darwin's name for their philosophical belief that life "evolved" from nothing by some unexplained atheist random means) are wrong, however, when they reach to say that their philosophy can scientifically explain the origins of life.