Whom to believe: darwin or adam and eve?

Question

Whom to believe: darwin or adam and eve?

Answer 1

I'd give the scientific vote to Darwin, but the message behind the biblical Genesis of  humanity never satisfied with  a perfect world and seeking their own destruction is certainly the more important message for us all!

Answer 2

EVOLUTION IS A FAKE THEORY

Evolutionists cannot come up with an explanation for the origin of flies. Yet, surprisingly, though they cannot explain the formation of a tiny fly, they attempt to explain the transformation of gigantic dinosaurs into birds. Moreover, they fabricate an imaginary scenario asserting that dinosaurs who flapped their front legs to hunt flies took flight. It is, undoubtedly, senseless for a theory which cannot come up with an explanation even for a tiny fly, to comment on how completely flightless creatures managed to take to the air.

Evolutionists have valid reasons for not mentioning the origin of flies. First of all, flies have a perfect flight mechanism, which cannot be wholly imitated even with today's technology. An average fly has a wing system that enables it to flutter its wings 500 times a second. Moreover, this system is planned so perfectly that it is able to move both its wings simultaneously at such an amazing speed. Apart from this, it has a complex respiratory system. It can use the oxygen it needs to fly in a much quicker and much more efficient way than other living things.

English biologist Robin Wootton describes the perfect creation of the fly as follows:

The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear. . . . Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of air. They have few if any technological parallels - yet. (Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings", Scientific American, v. 263, November 1990, p.120)

Are elephants, squirrels and other mammals derived from a common origin?

According to the claims of the theory of evolution, reptiles are the ancestors both of birds and of mammals. When mammals are considered, it can easily be seen how impossible such a claim is. For example, let's think about tigers, cows, bears, elephants, dolphins, whales, mice and bats. There are great structural differences between these mammal species. Furthermore, each of these living things possesses systems specifically designed for their own needs. For example, dolphins have a very sensitive sonar system. Bears have mechanisms which are appropriate to the climatic conditions of their habitat.

Evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard expresses what great difficulty these differences cause to evolutionists as follows:

Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies [evolutionary development] of mammalian taxa will be disappointed. (R. Eric Lombard, "Review of Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear, Gerald Fleischer," Evolution, vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230)

Apart from these differences, the fossil record demonstrates that mammals, like all living things, appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed with their present perfect structures, without any evolutionary process.

Can living cells come into being by chance?

No, they cannot. Cells have such a complex structure that it is not possible for them to have come into existence spontaneously or by chance. In a small space which can only be seen by a microscope, there are incredibly complex structures such as specialised working systems, communication systems, systems for in-coming and out-going transportation, control systems for the exchange of materials and centres where information is recorded. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges the exquisiteness in the structure of a cell saying: "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man." (W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 298-99.)

The probability of the spontaneous formation of such a perfect structure, which mankind, with 20th century technology at its disposal cannot succeed in producing, is "zero". The cell is created by Allah with its complete perfect structure.



question 100

Could the molecule called DNA, which is found in the nucleus of cells, have come into being by chance?

DNA is a molecule, which has an extremely complex structure. This molecule contains the complete information of the human body, which is recorded by means of a special coding system. In addition to features like height, eye, hair and skin colours, the DNA of a single cell also contains the design of 206 bones, 600 muscles, a network of 10,000 auditory muscles, a network of 2 million optic nerves, 100 billion nerve cells and 100 trillion cells in the body. If we were to write down the information coded in the DNA, we would end up with a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of encyclopaedias of 500 pages each. Yet this incredibly voluminous information is not encoded in volumes of encyclopaedias, but in the components of DNA called "genes".

Genes are made up of four special bases called nucleotides, which occur in a particular sequence. An error in this sequence would render the gene completely useless. There are 200,000 genes in the human body, and each of the millions of nucleotides making up these genes must be in the right sequence. When mathematical calculations are done to measure the probability of this sequence being formed by chance, its impossibility becomes evident. For example according to the calculations of Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, the possibility is one in 41,000. The number 41,000 is the equivalent of 10600, which gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.

The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in the following way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. (Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118)

Answer 3

I believe in God

Answer 4

Both but partly. Adam and Eve existed in Africa - their garden of Eden. they are the first two homo sapiens or human beings that was changed through evolution that is designed by God.

Answer 5

Not the first or second choice I Believe in our own creation story when I say our own I am referring to us Natives here on turtle island (aka-north America) we too have a beginning and as far as I know we did not evolve or come from a place called Eden I think this is true for many of the other religions and beliefs. what I'm getting at is there is more than JUST your two options.

Answer 6

Neither. They are just theories.

Answer 7

It is not necessarily a choice you have to make.  To even have a conflict you have to decide that the Genesis narrative means something that is not entirely clear from the text.  You can have a plenipotentiary view of the Bible and still have no conflict.  

I promise you that there will be developments in the next few years that will shed light on evolution.  

Those who make time lines have to make partially unwarranted assumptions about what the writer was trying to do.

But for me and my house, I choose God. (Joshua)

Answer 8

Alfred Russel Wallace proposed a theory of natural selection

which prompted Charles Darwin to publish his works early the two combined there work and published a joint  journal the work these men did has stood the test of time and  This theory became widely accepted by the scientific community

Adam and eve was just a bible story

Answer 9

I don't believe either theory, and that is what they are theories and pure speculation. If you weren't there it is speculation.

Answer 10

I believe both, actually.

I was not raised in any religion, so that has blessedly given me the freedom to explore spirituality on my own.

The conclusion I've reached is that there is one God.  Many religions believe that THEIR God is the only one [the cause of far too many wars and violent actions], but I believe that each religion is just a different path in the forest, with them all meeting at the end.

The Old & New Testaments were inspired BY God, but were WRITTEN by mortals. Except for God evidently carving the Ten Commandments on stone, all other acts of writing were done by human hands.  Since the books were written by humans, each writer either consciously or unconsciously imposed his/her convictions [and prejudices?] on what they were writing.

As such, the Bible is comprised of humans trying to explain their faith.  It's not a textbook or documented history casebook.  It's just a ton of ways to for them to say, "God is pretty awesome."

There are many examples of incongruities in the Bible.  Where did Adam & Eve's daughters-in-law come from, how did the dove appear to Noah if all non-ark life was extinguished, etc ad infitum.  The writers didn't have the Internet or even encylopedias for research -- they just wrote from the heart.

Now to your question:  It is ridiculous to think that God created everything in the Universe in six days.  First of all, why would he be rushed?  There wouldn't be any witnesses [even Adam's eyes were shut, right?], so he couldn't even be trying to impress anyone -- actually, if he were, he would have created video cameras!  And the author of Genesis had never even heard of the concept of biology, so the creation was merely his way of trying to figure out how people came to be.  Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in Genesis, of course -- their bones were still undiscovered.

So why did my first sentence above state that I believed in Darwin as well?  It's very simple.  Evolution is God at work, because God is nature, and the laws of physics.  God is not some robe-clad grandfather figure sitting on a throne -- God is the essence of all matter.  Think of it this way -- there is no way our profoundly limited brains can even begin to comprehend the immensity of it all -- the chemicals swimming around up there would evaporate!  :-)   I like to think that when we die, our souls are immediately told all the secrets of the universe.  Of course, perhaps once we're free of this mortal life our souls simply aren't interested.

So there you have it.  God is a very talented craftsman who takes his time shaping things and tinkering with them.  I think he probably enjoys the creative process -- he obviously could make everything perfect, but that would be far less interesting than for living creatures to have difficulties to overcome.

Answer 11

Both!!  Odd? Not at all.

Darwin's belief in evolution has been proved.

Adam and Eve is a simple analogy of the process of evolution that enables humanity to understand the source of their existence.

Answer 12

Look up to your mom and father ....

Now you know whom to believe.!

Answer 13

darwin

Answer 14

God

so I guess that would be the Adam and Eve route

Answer 15

Darwin,  He's more believable, and more scientific.  Some of his theories can be proven by science.

Adam and Eve, is really a fairytale invented for religion.  As if someone could be created from sand or a rib, it's not scientifically possible

Answer 16

I believe in Darwin...cuz he got proof....frankly adam and eve populating the world...just seems to farfetched...I mean...Eve doesn't have that many eggs to cover the nation...

Answer 17

The story of Adam and Eve is an interesting Theological tale. There are references of Adam's first wife that was created as his equal. Being the typical man, Adam complained to God about this dilemma and God agreed. The first wife, Lilith, was banished. God then created Eve from one of Adam's rib bones (this symbolizes Adam's ownership of her and his superiority to her). So in essence we have three people on earth. Two in Eden and one outside. There are later references of other people on earth. Kane even went to a city after he killed his brother... If his parents were the first two people and Kane and Able were their offspring... where did the population of the city come from. Very simple. The Jewish people believed that THEY were made in god's image. Not all humanity, just themselves. So in a strictly theological view Adam and Eve could have populated the earth with people. Not all people but they were the founding parents of the Jewish people.

This is also a fable much like Romulus and Remus forming Rome... or on more familiar terms the chicken and the egg. There must always be a start, so early people believed that start must have been a single man and a single woman. Makes sense from theri standpoint when they have no concept of evolution.

My vote is for intelligent design. Evolution guided by the hand of God.

Answer 18

Regarding Adam and Eve,

At least the idiots that believe in the bible accept they are inbred :)

Evolution is a LAW not a theory.

Facts to prove it.

1. HUMAN taller than in pre-history

2. Vestigial structures

3. bacteria resistance to anti-biotic

4. selective breeding in horse, dogs, fish, etc

5? Liberals - once conservative through time educated enough to advance to the latter stage of development

ape - conservative - liberal - me ;)

Answer 19

definately not darwin or any so called doctors or scientists from the 1700's to the late  1800's because their ideas and theories are and were based upon finding reasons why africans were inferior,which would support  or justify the continual act of enslavement in the world. aristotle claimed that through the color of a man skin he can be labeled slave if he's dark,black etc... this was the premise for all the sciences and medical discoveries of that era. and since king james screwed the bible that isn't credible either. try another question this time make it a more intelligent one. don't forget the era of these people,america does have a sick history .

Answer 20

adam and eve definitely. i am no ape.

Answer 21

Darwin come up with an interesting, yet incomplete theory, while Adam and Eve is not to be taken litterally, as the whole bible, but is just a way to explain things that could be very difficult to explain with the terminology of that period.

All in all, we don't really get the whole answer yet, Darwin cover evolution from our environment constraints to have been at the origin of humans, while the other think that explain how humans become like we are today (culturally speaking we are a trade base specie and Adam and Eve explain just that).

Answer 22

Uh, more has been learned since Darwin's time.

It's not about "whom to believe"; what do you want to base your beliefs on?

Reason and evidence, or authority?

If you chose authority, you're abandoning the very tools we have to best comprehend the world.

You also have the question of which authority to believe.

There are thousands of creation myths, none of which have any evidence; if you abandon evidence, then it's pure guesswork or prejudice deciding which of those thousands to believe.

Besides, accepting authority, when there's no reason to accept that authority, is unreasonable, and unlikely to yield truth.

Answer 23

Adam and Eve never wrote a book, or any kind of articles, detailing their life in Eden. I might be mistaken. But Darwin wrote a book. That doesnt necessarily answer your question........You, however, can believe whatever you want. I'm leaning towards Darwin however.

Answer 24

I have issues with both theories, Darwin's definately closer to the money than Genesis though, pure fairytale stuff, designed to keep women in their place imo.

Answer 25

If the bible is right how come it also condemns inbreading? Adam and Eve must have had a female child...which must have had s*x with Adam or one of the male children...doesn't really make sence...I don't know about you but I wouldn't s***w my sister.

And the creation of complex organs such as the eye can be explained - they are made up of cells - these cells are random mutations for example the cones cells in the eye: These can detect light - a simple creature that can detect light will have a much better chance of survival than one that can't. With 2 cone cells it can detect light at twice the visual acuracy and definition than the previous simple creature so will survive better and most likely out compete the 1st.

Answer 26

some scientists say that the chances of something as complex as the eye to have developed naturally/biologically without "intelegent design" (or an influence of a higher power) is less likely than winning the lottery many times over... and thats just the eye... our body is so crazily (not a word.. i know) complex... that the concept of it developing or "evolving" from some little particles.... now that takes ALOT of faith to believe in...

Answer 27

I believe Charles Darwin of course! Adam & Eve thing is just a mtyth!

Answer 28

i don,t beleve in the adam and eve because they had all sons on girls where did the brides of the sons come from.

Answer 29

Darwin's utter garbage, although evolution as defined as species emerging from previous one's makes sense - also a 4.5 billion year old earth, with the fossils in it with their proper ages, is scientific - Darwin's theory of evolution is a bunch of hork, because there is no scientific evidence for it (there is an agenda for such an intellectual fraud being perpetrated by the establishment - it is the advancement of materialistic atheism in our culture - there is some evidence for natural selection, in a limited way, when it comes to micro-evolution, but that is all) -  but when considering evolution itself, the evidence does not absolutely prove evolution, but strongly suggests it, so it is always in the realm of theory (although it is a good theory).

Darwin's theory is based upon the principle that the strong get ahead by destroying the weak - welcome to n**i Germany! - Nazism, with its elimination of the unfit, is simply Darwinism applied to the political sphere - and they teach this to students as being the basis for animal and human behaviour - no wonder our society is disintegrating into violence - it is as irresponsible as it is criminal to teach such a thing.

.

Answer 30

definitely, adam and eve....

Answer 31

Neo-Revitalzed is an idiot.  Twisting words and out of context quotes suit a personal ajenda, but prove nothing.

I'm getting tired of explaining why, but both Darwin and the Bible are right.  Live with it.