Do you believe in evolution and big bang theory? why or why not?
930711
No, it's simple, something can;t come from nothing. It's like pointing to nothing and saying that eventually a monkey is going to appear. They say that we came from a giant piece of matter exploding or a monkey , but where did that come from? They tell you nothing, but something can't come from nothing!
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
1065700
I would be surprised to find an atheist who did not accept evolution. So as an atheist yes I do accept evolution. I also deny  the existence or supernatural forces.
1158348
Either you believe Gods Word or you dont.  There is no inbetween like believing God allowed evolution.  God said He created everything in six days, do you take it by faith or do you need proof.  Their's the 2 choices.  Its not that difficult.
754465
Sure. \nLike Southpark said, evolution answers the question how, and religion answers the question why.
106760
Science at this point does not know what caused the big bang. Or if there were multiple big bangs. \n\nBy the way, evolution has nothing to do with the big bang,other than they are both governed by natural laws of the universe (some have said these are God's Laws, or Maimonides equated these natural laws with angels, if that makes you feel any better). \n\n\nI have attached a paper on the big bang you might find enlightening.
1176451
Well, I'm a creationist, I believe God created everything in the universe. Darwinism is plain stupid and wrong. Can all the organization and beauty in the universe come out 'by chance'?? This is ridiculous, an intelligent power made it, and that power is GOD.
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!
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
464144
I wonder the same thing. But I believe God created the world. I don't believe in evolution. It just doesn't make sense!
504420
First, you can safely ignore anybody who talks about "evolution" when talking about the Big Bang theory or the origin of the universe.  Such a person doesn't know the difference between biology and astrophysics, and is thus is not the best person to be asking about science.\n\nSecond, the "atoms and other stuff" didn't "cause" the Big Bang (as you say in your question).  They were created *by* it.\n\nThird, the Big Bang theory proposes that the light elements (hydrogen, helium, and perhaps some lithium) were created in *extremely* high-energy conditions present in the first moments of the universe after the big bang.  The heavier elements were created much later after gravity had coalesced masses of hydrogen into early stars.  The confirmation of these processes keeps mounting as we build bigger particle accelerators that simulate higher and higher energies in the laboratory.  \n\nBut I'm sure you're really asking what happened "before" the big bang to "cause" it.   Scientists barely have ways to even ask this question, as the very nature of "before" breaks down when we're talking about the beginning of time itself.\n\nIn other words, science does not claim to have all the answers ... but that is not to say it has no answers at all.  \n\n--- \nAnd as for Mike B. ... a shining example of the worst of both worlds ... gets his science from the Bible, but not a thing about how to treat people.  It's unlikely he's ever read the Bible, or if he did, he didn't understand a word of it.
956969
I believe that God created evolution.  Therefore, I believe in creationism.  Things evolve, but as far as man coming from beast, no way!
438082
God does...I believe in the creation of all, but that doesn't mean that some species haven't evolved...There is probably room for both God and science, in the whole scenario..but not knowing enough about evolution, I couldn't say what part it has in the scheme of things..\nAltho God is my primary focus, I try to keep an open mind and learn things...
1179547
I think we're all obliged to pass on all known facts, and all theories.\nAnd, theory is the correct choice of words for your question, IMO.\nSince neither can currently be absolutely proven nor disproven by 'scientific' standards, both of them are theories (or beliefs .. sets of information that meet personal criteria for acceptance).\n\nI lean toward God/Creation, myself. That trumps Big Bangs, etc. since God would have created that  :-)  (not that it matters to anyone but me!)
555087
No, there are no good reasons to believe in evolution.  As a Christian you should only believe in the Bible (God's words).  The Bible speaks nothing about evolution.
20181
Hi yes I believe in evolution, its the only feasable explanation of how we developed into what we look and act like today. See the links below for more information.
231135
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c