what is the Evolution of the Planets in both creationist view and scientific view?
154749
The creationist view is that God spoke, and things came into being.  This is surprizingly interesting, considering some unpublished stuff I've seen concerning possible connections between the quantum foam and actual particles: on the Orion Press website--a TREK fanfiction site, best found by a google search--there is a short story by someone that has obviously ALSO read this stuff: THE HITCHHIKER.\n\nConversly, the evolutionist view is that somehow, there was a major creative event that produced an unimaginably vast amount of matter/energy in what we call our universe.  This stuff cooled and expanded, allowing the four forces we know to condense out, then allowing matter to condense out, then over unimaginably huge stretches of time, the matter condensed into stars, galaxies and whatnot.  Heavier elements (beyond the lithium/boron level) were forged in the hearts of these early stars, and then spewed into space when these stars went nova; a second, and third, etc. generation of stars were born, lived and died, enriching the universe in stuff like carbon and iron and titanium and whatever, to the point that a world like ours could condense out of the mess...\n\nBoth views have their detractors and proponents.  The evolution group call the creationists mindless barbarians; the creationists call the evolutionist group  mechanistic determinists, and folks that extrapolate 'way out of the range that their observations will support...
739070
One of the many things that evolution can explain but creationism can't. \n\nEvolution-wise, its a vestigial organ that is formed because all vertebrate embryos are inherently female, but with a chromosome given at the right developmental stage they become male, but the nipple remains.
661513
The earth came into existence by some as yet undetermined process, the most likely of which was a "big bang" whereby all existing planets and solar systems began to form into their current transitory states. During that process, animal life began to form on the earth, by yet another unknown process. The earth is currently in a state of transition that will eventually result in its return to the previous unknown condition that resulted in the "big bang."\n\n\n\nNow send me $5 or I'll put a curse on you.
1035417
Interesting answers so far.  I will add my arguments for fun.  Those who believe in literal Creationism have a few problems answering this simple test.  We can clearly prove that light from distant galaxies have arrived at our location.  That process in the current state of the universe takes billions of years.  So there are two options:  1) God has created the whole ball of wax, and made it look like it was very old,  or 2) God (who is not limited by time anyhow...) created the universe over millions and billions of years.  Why would God deceive us?\n\nAfter you use your brain (created by God to think critically) you hopefully will come to the conclusion as to the age of the world.  Once that is established, many of the questions regarding evolution can be placed in similar context.  Would God evolve hundreds of thousands of species, yet pull man out of a hat a few thousand years ago?  There is no conflict in this view with scripture if you read it to get the message intended.  Scripture is the guidelines for experiencing God, communication with God, not a systematic description of the Universe.\n\nA case in point, in Genesis, before Eve, God gave Adam the job of naming all the plants and animals.  Is that not science?  Of course Adam became bored with that and wanted a woman...  Science, though a holy endeavor, is no substitute for the love of a good woman.\n\nFaith hinges on the unknown.  Once something is known, some portions of what you believe may change.  But, that is peripheral to the core of Christian belief.  For the Christian, faith should be exercised to promote life, not argue about science.  And for science, it is validated only to that which is observable.  Those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God, do not understand science.  At least this is my opinion, for what its worth.
1122825
nope you cant prove it either way.\n\ni was watching a show on evolution yesterday though and i had an interesting thought.\n\nyou remember hearing that if earths history was an encylopedia that the history of man would only be on like that last half of the last paragraph of the last book?\n\nwell then why didnt intelligent life evolve during that whole time? \n\njust a thought.
219431
Something like the big bang must have tooken millions even billions of years- and who's to say we haven't been around that long? Evolution obviously takes a very long time so there is a very big line between Science and Religion. Some people beleive God created the Earth and the univese and have Faith in something that is mostly one-sides- Some people beleive that science and evolution and astronomical theories created the Universe. and we can't really decide on which one is true. The Science side has more evidence to back it up while the Religion side, well i don't know if they even have evidence therefore i'll leave that out. But yes..it's a diverse question. People must take their sides but must still leave other opinions open\n\nIf you start to just beleive in one thing and ignore all the others- your so determined to beleive into something you would deny everything else- To be honest, i beleive in the scientific explanation of how life came to be. And i beleive the Bible isn't the life of Jesus but more a guide on how to live life as a good moral human being. Well thats my opinion.
82794
The concept of evolution as an explanation for the origins of life is flawed. The theory of evolution explains the origins of species, but not the origins of life. A lump of premordial goo, no matter how well it could adapt to its environment, lacks DNA. The first cell must have had DNA to reproduce. Therefore, the first cell must have been created; that would not conflict with neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Bible. (Doesn't it say something like, "God created man from earth"? Anything organic is made from earth.)\n\nAnd that's why both the Bible and the Theory of Evolution are correct.
770975
Well, since both reincarnation and creation are religious beliefs, while evolution is a scientific theory, it's comparing apples to oranges. They are in whole different realms.\n\nI'd like to point out that the poster above me (Paganfire) is mistaken. Her explanation of evolution is actually that of thermodynamics. Biological evolution is descent with modification. Many people lump all the theories of science together as one 'belief', but they are not beliefs, as they are built on evidence.
630426
First off, creationism is not a scientific theory.  Please don't elevate it to that level with the term "scientific creationism."  Creationism is religion, not science.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
341923
And that's only the pick of the Iceberg...There are many more issues that goes in other directions than with the Theory of Evolution.  In Scientific-historical terms, we still think that the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the Universe.  Your question has a great value for the Genius curious minds that doesn't stop in the established Scientific Dogmas. You're getting somewhere...
314249
Yes, the story of the dinosaurs is told by the Life Carriers, the higher beings intrusted with life development on new spheres.\n\nhttp://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html\n\nIn our universe the administration of these affairs is overseen by Christ, the Creator Son of God who founded our universe. If you read the New Testament carefully, you will see that Christ created our universe: Hebrews Ch 1, vs 2-3, and other places. Gabriel, the highest and first created being in our universe, The Bright Morning Star, is the Chief Executive and right hand to Christ.  He is assisted by the Melchizedeks, one of whom taught Abraham:  Hebrews, Chapter 7 (Machiventa Melchizedek, no earthly parents).\n\nMortals are not created perfect, rather they are created with the capacity to evolve to perfection.  \n\nBoth planets and universes can evolve to ages of Light and Life, when few people die from crime, war, disasters, and aging.  Rather, most are translated to the next higher sphere for which they have qualified.\n\nAt the Center of the Total Reality there is one pattern universe containing one billion perfect and diverse worlds.\n\nBut the surrounding superuniverses (seven of them) are intended to evolve to perfection.  Each superuniverse is administered by three Ancients of Days, the oldest beings of historical record with respect to the time and space creations.  They are not ascendant mortals, rather were here long before any of the lowest planets were started.  \n\nThe Ancients of Days are of a type called Supreme Trinity Origin beings, flawless, and having authority with respect to the superuniverse like the Supreme Court has with respect to the USA.  However, they act as administrators more than judges, and have a huge staff to assist the execution of superuniverse affairs.  Periodic planetary judgment falls under their purview, thus one is mentioned in the Book of Daniel.\n\nEach superuniverse encompasses 100,000 local universes, each founded by a Creator Son of God, like unto Christ in Divine Endowments.\n\nI was about to write more, but the Spirit said, I will test my children, to see if they are diligent.\n\nTherefore I can only give a url for those humble enough to seek further light.\n\nhttp://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html
517959
Creation Science\nwww.answersingenesis.org\nwww.icr.org\nwww.creationworldview.org\nwww.creationists.org\nwww.drdino.com\n\nHope these help.
1070273
There is no scientific view.  Plain and simple God spoke it into existence.  The human mind cannot comprehend that.
653069
The Earth is 4,570,000,000 years old, approximately; though many Creationists think it to be only 6000 "without proof otherwise" they are wrong: we have proven it using gravitational measurements of other planets, measurements of solar brightness over time, radioactive dating, continental drift, and many other factors. If you want to  force religion on people, don't do it in a SCIENCE forum! You will only cause heated debates and great offense from both sides.
1031230
Errr, not really.\n\nYou must also understand that evolution in no way says anything about the origins of life.  That's a whole other subject ;).
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!