Why fight over  Creationism vs Evolutionism? what about God  created evolution?
412786
Thank you I am so glad someone asked that question. You are so right on that. If you think about it, yeah evolution is scientifically proven so there's no denying that. But if you are arguing on the side of creationism than you have to realize that there really is no denying science. You can't deny a fact such as gravity exists. It's just there and no bible can disprove that. So if you combine both theories there shouldnt be an ragument at all. God created the universe; that's the explanation for the "big boom" and then he created humans. Humans and all other cretures of the universe naturally evolved from his creation. Now how hard is it to accept the fact that that's probably the most logical explanation out there?
615396
creation or evolution?
66439
Creationism means that "Zap!" there we (and all other living things) were... created as is in the blink of any eye (or a few days).  This is Biblical mythology.  Although interesting, it has been shown with much evidence to be incorrect.\n\nIntelligent design means that God either set in motion the changes that man and nature would undergo from the very begining... or that he invisibly changed nature over many thousands of millions of years and still continues to do so today... very slowly!  So that he set things up for evolution to occur and still controls it.\n\nHowever this "theory" cannot be tested.  We cannot, by the definition of God, experiment on God to prove what God has or has not done.  Many people BELIEVE that because nature is so complex, that it must have had an intelligent creator and therefore the intelligent creator exists.  But this does not prove the assumption that "If nature is complex, then it must have had an intelligent creator".  That statement is where the faith lies.\n\nEvolution shows that beings have changed over the millions of years by natural selection.  It does not say that God did or did not have a hand in it.  It is merely fact.\n\nSome people think that evolution is blasphemous because it contradicts the Old Testament.  But many things that are done now-a-days by most modern Christians contradict the Old Testament. (Dietary habits, clothing, etc.)  Even intelligent design contradicts the old testament.\n\nThe statement "The sky is blue." (on a clear day!) is no more or less true if you think it's blue because (1) God made it blue, or (2) because God set up the atmospheric conditions to make the sky blue, or (3) it is blue only because of atmospheric conditions and not because of God.\n\n"Evolution happend" is just a fact.  If you think it happened because of God or not is really a matter of faith.\n\nAnd being part of faith, should be kept out of government.  Much of the US constitution is based on keeping religion and goverment separate.  Evolution is fact and should be taught.  If you think it occured because of God, that is great, but it is not science.  Faith has done some wonderful things.  So has science.  But to contaminate faith with science is like trying to experiment on God.  And to enter faith into science completely destroys the objectivity of science.\n\nBoth creationism and intelligent design are based on faith and should not be taught in public schools.\n\n\nP.S.  To say that evolution cannot be proven is absurd.  There is countless evidence in favor of it.  Just as the theory of gravity.  You will have to read up on natural selection.
417910
The theory of gravity is a pretty good theory, but it doesn't answer any of those questions either.  \n\nThe theory of evolution doesn't concern any of those questions either except #9 which is flawed.\n\nAs I see it there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and christian beliefs. God created man...through evolution.  I don't take everything in the bible literally, like the garden of eden story.  That story is not meant to be taken literally.  It is a story to explain something that people couldn't explain at the time Genesis was written.
326636
THIS TOOK ME A WHILE TO TYPE -- I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS A WHILE--BOTH SIDES EVOLUTION AND CREATION--PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE SHOOTING IT DOWN... \n\nFIRST, I will talk about what is called THIESTIC EVOLUTION which means, GOD created the universe threw Evolution...\nWhat does the BIBLE SAY ABOUT MILLIONS OF YEARS? \num... NOT that God used Evolution...\n\nSECOND, I will talk about THE BIG BANG; BIG DUD...\n\n=====\nGod made us--However we did not EVOLVE into what we are today--God created ADAM in a matter of minutes not Billions of Years... It is more reasonable to believe that God SPOKE the universe into existance rather than using BILLIONS of years...\n\nI think that God is POWERFUL ENOUGH to do it RIGHT the FIRST TIME...\n\nGod is not IMPERFECT and does not need Billions of years of trial and Chances to Make Creation--He can cirtanly SPEAK everything into existance in a matter of Minutes...\n\n\nPeople use this verse: 2Pet 3:8"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."\n\nThis verse is talking about how GOD is OUTSIDE of our time space continum--IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLICAL CREATION...\n\nThe Bibles says that there was NO death before Adam--I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS IN A MINUTE... If there were Thousands of years before Adam in which Natural Selection took place then that would place DEATH before Adam--The Bible is CLEAR THERE WAS NO DEATH BEFORE ADAM...\n\nI think God is GOOD, he would not use MISFITS and DEATH to bring about creation. God looked upon his creation and said "IT IS GOOD"--Not, It is getting better...\n\nGod created the Earth, Space, Water, Animals and Man in a specific ORDER on different DAYS which could not include thousands of years and this is why: \n\n1. God created Plants on Day 3\n\n2. God created Sunlight on Day 4 \n \n3. If a Day = 1 thousand years then Plants went without sunlight for a thousand years. Plants need sunlight.\n\n-------Still not convinced?\n\n1. God made plants and flowers on day 3\n\n2. God created the Birds and the BEES on day 5\n\n3. Bees polinate the flowers \n\n4. Flowers would have to go TWO THOUSAND YEARS without bee polination--and Sunlight--\n\n-=-=-=-=-=- what about Days and Nights?\n\n1. If one day is a thousand years; the Day would be 500 years and the Night would be 500 years... 500 years is a LONG TIME...\n\n2. Some Animals can not hunt at night and need the day to hunt for food because they can NOT SEE--yet others animals are Nocturnal and need the Night for hunting...\n\n3. If Natural selection is true during this period--Animals needed to HUNT in order to survive;\n\n4. MANY ANIMALS WOULD DIE OFF DUE TO THE NIGHT AND DAY CONDITIONS--Leaving us with ONLY DAY DWELLING CREATURES or ONLY NIGHT DWELLING CREATURES and an unequal balance in the food chain.\n\n-=-=-= How long did God create the Universe?\n\nI think its interesting to note: \n\nUniverse = (Uni-verse) root word, Single Spoken Verse(word)\n\nGod SPOKE the universe into existance\n\nBecause the Bible says so: -Then God said "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened\n\nGOD SAID; IT WAS SO....\n\nGod SPOKE the universe into existance...\n\n-=-=-=-WHAT ABOUT ADAM?\n\nIf Natural Selection was the case, there would be Thousands of years of DEATH before Adam...\n\n\nHowever, the Bible teaches Adam sin brought Death;\nDeath entered the world because of man's(Adams) sin:\n\n"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses," Romans 5:14 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." I Corinthians 15:21-22 &q
250966
Hey hun.  Unfortunately, there are no sure answers to any of your questions -- at least, none that the general population agrees with.  Most scientists agree that evolution is how we came to look the way we do and that yes, we did evolve from primates.  But many of them do not find comfort in God and are skeptical about His existence.\n\nDo you think creationism makes sense?  Are you a religious person?  Think it out for yourself, see what you think is most valid.  Look up research about evolution if you want, and ask your religious leader questions.  All I can tell you is, you are going to get conflicting information from all those different sources out there.  You just have to process all of it and figure out wich stuff makes the most sense to you.\n\nGood luck!
1021610
We have fact and the ability to think  on our side. Facts that prove that there is no god. That means that you only have ignorance on your side. No one but Christians suggest we came from monkeys, that is just one more example of their ignorance. Evolutionists say humans and apes came from a common ancestor that was not either human or monkey. Do you really think creationism is better? We came from Adam and eve? So then all after them were inbred. The family must have sat down together for orgies. Inbreeding that closely would kill a species, but god let them live to f*** their mothers. I would think you would rather be related to apes, than come from motherf***ers. You need not kid yourself by suggesting that you have a trace of intelligence, when you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Have a nice day.
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.
811541
I don't say that evolution does not exist, I say that however life came to be, God put it there. In other words, if there is evolution, God started it. Maybe there was a Big Bang, but God started it. That's all.
859775
The line drawn in the sand has been made worse by the propaganda on evolution by those who DON'T believe that God made the world or even exists. ....and by some Chrisians who want to make the creation account in Genesis a doctrine of salvation.\n\nThese evolutionists who don't even want "intelligent design" mentioned as part of the world coming into being seem to have an anti-God agenda.  And they are using the law to try to have evolution taught as a "fact" and not a theory.    Trouble is, they don't agree with each other and have no proof of what they preach.  They believe in their form of evolution on the basis of their "faith" in their theory.   They are as soundly religious as the preachers who don't want  evolution mentioned .\n\nGod did create the world.  As I have been looking up passages, I am suprised at how many, many times in both the New and Old Testament the Bible  declares that God created the heavens and the earth. He seems to want all to know that it was HE who created all things.\nBut He does not explain how He created it.\n\nThat is my agreement with you.
408718
Why not both? They are not mutually exclusive. By making me choose between the two you are creating a false paradox. I could believe in God and Evolution or none of the above.\n\nAlso asking people if they believe in Evolution is like asking if they believe in gravity. It's a scientific fact, things evolve. However, the idea that life arose through evolution is an accepted theory but not totally a fact. So if you make me choose between the two I have to pick evolution because it's definately true.
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
1138125
Evolution is a theory. It is what science is all about. Religion and Science can go hand in hand. I believe the biblical creation story of 7 days to God is actually like a million years to us!! god gave man intellect to study the creators creation therefore study God's marvelous works. peace.
1157600
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
1167057
The theory of evolution is most definitely NOT a religion.\n\nI disagree with the accuracy of your comparison.  To elaborate...\n1) Evolution did not sprout from an inspired man.  Evolution was postulated to explain evidence, and that evidence points to common descent.  Evolution was postulated 100 years before Darwin published Origin of Species, and the ones who came up with it first were not greek, nor were they Charles Darwin.\n2) "Religion supports tales occurring before man."  If these tales are interpreted metaphorically, there is no conflict between science and the bible.  It is only biblical literalists that take issue with it.  Still, this statement and the supposed comparison doesn't help to define evolution as a religion.\n3) If religion is defined as that which answers the questions every man longs the answer for, I guess Jeapardy, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and other such TV shows are also religions.\n4) What constitutes proof is up to the individual.  Evolution is proven to me.  Maybe not to you.  That's fine.  For the sake of argument, we will say that there is no proof of evolution.  But there is a lot of evidence for it.  Creationists have no evidence whatsoever, other than twisted science, fallacious arguments, and illogical conclusions.  Oh yeah.  I forgot about criticisms of evidence for evolution.  Regardless of how valid the criticism, that isn't evidence for creation.\n5) "Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis"  Again, this premise is way off.  If you think a particular brand of car is better than any other, you may argue why, but you couldn't prove the statement to be true.  And I doubt you would consider your preference for that make and/or model a religion.\n6) Evolution is supported only on the basis of the evidence.  Prior to the fossil record, and prior to taxonomy, it was assumed that all earth's critters were created from nothing.  Then came the evidence.  Then came people who looked at it closely.  Then came the attempt to explain that evidence...evolution.\n\nI could go on through the rest of your points, but none of them are accurate comparisons between religion and evolution, in my opinion.\n\nHere is a much better breakdown of how religion and evolution differ...\nFrom http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html\n"1) Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life). \n2) Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments. \n3) Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not. \n4) Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist. \n5) Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that. \n6) Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies. \n7) Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off into new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.\n\nHow can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolutio
771125
Creationism.  Although largely faith based there is also substantial evidence for creation....\n\n....as well as hardly any evidence for evolution....