jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (96 posts)

Which is right: evolution or creation?

  1. Obscure_Treasures profile image52
    Obscure_Treasuresposted 6 years ago

    plz tell me

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is about what happens to lifeforms over time. Creationism is about the creation of lifeforms.

      There are many different creation stories from the various religions in the world. Do we look at each one separately or toss them altogether into a salad?

    2. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Creavolution...

      Divinely created evolution

    3. Lindy's World profile image83
      Lindy's Worldposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is both creation and evolution.  God got the ball rolling and let things evolve on their own.

    4. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Neither, the question is wrong!

  2. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Either one, Evolution or creation, takes faith to believe.

    So look into them both and make a decision for yourself.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution does take SOME faith to believe:

      You need to have faith that "When I see macroevolution happen, it is macroevolution" (to see macroevolution, get some fruit flies and mess with their environment for some 100 generations).

      You need to have faith that "All those fossils that I see and can touch can be properly dated to a pretty specific time period" (You can easily learn how to do your own forms of dating by simply researching how they do it)

      You need to have faith that "All those people who ACTUALLY USE EVOLUTION ON A DAILY BASIS are using evolution on a daily basis".

      Basically, in order to "believe" in Evolution, you simply need to have "faith" that 'what you see and touch and do is actually what you see and touch and do"

      In order to believe in creationism, you need to believe that a giant invisible guy in the sky (no, not THAT giant invisible guy in the sky, nor the other 500,000, THIS SPECIFIC giant invisible guy in the sky) created the entire universe in a way that makes what you see and touch and do are NOT what you see and touch and do.

      So... the choice is yours.

  3. Eaglekiwi profile image70
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    Creation.

    Although sometimes the way people jump up and down sure makes a good case for Evolution lol

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah...

      ... y'know...

      ....Billions upon billions of fossils that all correctly correlate with the theory of evolution perfectly....

      In order to disprove evolution, all you would have to do is properly date a fossil to a time when the animal/plant shouldn't exist.

      It's that easy.

      But it's never happened.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think..

        Half of the equation is correct.

        Fossils show evidence...then man ,scientist palentologist, all the 'gist' people I will call them step in and in their great wisdom analyse, predict ,foretell, and categorise.

        Some I might add diligently research to their best of their ability.

        But I ask you this, where do they get this information. Are they not just building on another persons theories?

        God creates

        Man discovers and defines.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          God can create all he wishes - that means that you disbelieve Abiogenesis.

          But Evolution could easily co-exist with "god creates"

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yep




            Abiogenesis.

            Starts off making sense ,then.....whoosh out left field

            I remain agnostic.
            Too many ifs and maybe's,and still limited understanding.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              fossils exist.

              Look at them.

              Evolution happens.

              Abiogenesis has yet to be proven, however there are mounds of evidence building.

              1. Paul Wingert profile image79
                Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think ancient Jewish myth about how life was created in 7 days in a plush garden stocked with the tree of knowledge and a talking snake makes much better sense than evelution includeing the science of geology, palentology, astromomy, DNA, etc, etc. lol

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, and before you start saying things like "dating techniques are false", please acknowledge the following statement.

      IF you "believe" that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs; and you believe that the fallout from nuclear meltdowns will last millions of years... then you HAVE to believe that radio-carbon dating (and other systems) are accurate.

  4. Sneha Sunny profile image83
    Sneha Sunnyposted 6 years ago

    without any doubt,....... Evolution....

  5. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Debating creationists is so easy, even a cave man could do it.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ..Wise men still seek Him wink

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, wise men do not still seek "him". But, nice try. lol

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wise Men Still Seek Him
          Matthew 2:1-12

          Nice try Cags lol

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If a wise man/woman seeks "him", then they are not wise to begin with. lol

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
              Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hey you got something correct!!

              You are indeed right.

              1. Sneha Sunny profile image83
                Sneha Sunnyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                him?? god??

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
                  Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Both of them are right wink

                  1. Sneha Sunny profile image83
                    Sneha Sunnyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol..smile

  6. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Which is right: evolution or creation?

    That depends on what you're attempting to figure out.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Creationists, like Economists, are ever so clever.

      Are they doing real science
      or just confirming their bias?

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And, your point with regards to addressing my post?
        Again, your point?

        My post didn't say yes or no, to either, but your post seems to be assuming I am on the side of "creationists"? And, would be a poor assumption.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe, but you did say, "That depends on what you're attempting to figure out" which implies you must know of something that can be figured out using creationism as the foundation or process.

          What would that be exactly?

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I did say "that depends on what you're attempting to figure out", which was directed at the OP. That doesn't imply that I had anything to add to it. It is what it said. Don't interpret my sentences, you will do more harm than good.

            The statement you replied to, is a statement to someone who isn't the OP, but did imply "creationists, like economists, are ever so clever", creationist was my position.

            Again, not you.

            Now, to address, the post you did reply to? I've quoted it over.
            Below:
            This statement doesn't imply anything, except that Evan made a poor assumption. That's it. If you read something into the statement, then blame yourself.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No one interrupted you, Cagsil.  You came, you sound bited and then you vanished. No one is doing more harm to your posts than yourself. Having nothing to add to your sound bites is actually the issue here. You still haven't explained what it is we can figure out with creationism? Or, will it be like so many of your other posts where you really didn't have anything to say at all but felt it necessary to drop a sound bite that makes no sense?

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Again, putting words out in thin air that didn't exist to begin with. I didn't say you interrupted me or did anyone else.
                I cannot vanish. I am a member.
                Assumption is the mother of all F* ups.
                It wasn't a sound bite as you say. I simply made a statement, which was at the OP, which hasn't been addressed by the OP.
                You'd be correct. If it really matters, nothing good comes from "creationism".
                My statement made sense, maybe not to you, but then again, I'm not even sure you have a point for being on HP? Then again, it actually doesn't matter.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Finally, you are beginning to explain yourself. However, whether good or nothing good comes from creationism, it still doesn't explain what can be figured out with creationism. That was your claim.



                  If it made sense, there would no inquiries from anyone here. Note that there were inquiries.

                  Whether you envision a point for me being here or not, or if you thought it didn't matter is neither here nor there, but it certainly did help in exposing some who pretend to know what they're talking about.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What is the optimum word I used. I just explained that "what" with regards to creationism that nothing can be explained. Or did you not get that?

                    Untrue. There are plenty of ignorant people in the world, who have nothing better to do, but to butt into other people's lives. Thus, since they do not know their place in life or in this world, they must intrude into other people's lives, just to make themselves feel better.
                    It's still out whether or not, you do. But, be that as it may, it no longer concerns me. Enjoy.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nah, I was just goofing around with ya.

  7. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    If you are questioning the creation of life you must remember that evolution does not address the question at all.

    If you are questioning the evolution of one species to another then creation does not address the question except that all species were created simultaneously which we know to be false.  Creation does not acknowledge that one species can become another in any manner - it does not say yes or no.

    As far as the two "theories" do coincide, evolution has mountains of irrefutable evidence to support its claim that species evolve while creation has the written word of ONE millenia old book from beyond the dark ages to support it.

  8. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 6 years ago

    Creationism and evolution do not technically contradict each other, unless you want to believe the literal version with the Earth being created 6000 years ago. If you accept that Genesis is a metaphor, then you can easily argue that God started and guided the process of evolution over billions, not thousands, of years. Most sensible Christians do, including many scientists. It's only the fundamentalists who persist in believing that an omniscient, immortal being would be less capable of employing a little bit of creative metaphor when explaining advanced science to a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age shepherds than a typical ya vampire romance novelist. tongue

    That said, I'm personally agnostic about both God's involvement in creation and evolution and the existence of God him/her/itself. I don't think it contradicts the known science to suggest that a god or gods may have played a role, but I don't think supernatural involvement was necessary, either.

    1. Bubblegum Senpai profile image85
      Bubblegum Senpaiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Someone here has common sense wink

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Common sense is highly overrated! roll

  9. profile image0
    klarawieckposted 6 years ago

    We don't know what came first... the chicken? the egg? But either one must have come from somewhere, it didn't mysteriously evolve from a toad overnight... so yes, I'd say at one point one of the two was created by a higher life force.

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, the transition from amphibians (~400 mya) to reptiles (~300 mya) to birds (~150 mya) took about  250 million years, so it could not really be said to be overnight. wink

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, alright... but the question still remains... which came first? chicken or egg?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Define "egg" please, in terms of single celled, asexually reproducing, organism?  Failing that, we must assume that the "chicken" (although not a real chicken) came first.

          1. profile image0
            klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5340072_f248.jpg

            Definition from Dictionary.com

            1. the roundish reproductive body produced by the female of certain animals, as birds and most reptiles, consisting of an ovum and its envelope of albumen, jelly, membranes, egg case,  or shell, according to species.

            2. such a body produced by a domestic bird, especially the hen.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ??? Do you mean than an amoeba like creature produced eggs? 

              First you must evolve to where the animal can produce such a thing.  Perhaps a fishy thing with small, very simple eggs little more than a human egg that simply squirts them out everywhere.

              1. profile image0
                klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Then explain this to me...


                http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5340174_f248.jpg

                1. OutWest profile image60
                  OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That is one big cock!

                  1. profile image0
                    klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Now boys... don't get all worked up now... it's not a contest! big_smile

                2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  OK. Another reason for the chicken to run from a rooster.  smile

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Were you aware that mammals have and lay eggs?

              The eggs just don't get farther than the womb.

              Anyway, the egg clearly outdates the chicken.

              But if you're asking did the chicken's egg predate the chicken, then the answer is obviously no - a chicken can't lay a chicken's egg until after the chicken was created.

              1. profile image0
                klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                AHA! You said CREATED! big_smile

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  her der

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Nope.  I think Kerry nailed it below; a gamete suffered a mutation and something that wasn't quiiiite a chicken "created" (word used just for Klara smile) the very first egg destined to become a chicken.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The egg, of course! As shown in Kerry's post, the reptile laid a mutated-or evolved for those not into creationism-egg which contained the first ancestor of today's poor excuse for a chicken.smile

          1. profile image0
            klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Poor excuse?! How could you say such things! You have obviously never tasted my Cordon Bleu Chicken!

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Wow!  I've never observed a bleu chicken before, KW!  Are they raised in arctic climates?  lol

        3. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The egg came first.

          One species turns into another over time as more and more genetic mutations build up in the gene pool. The genetic mutations would occur during meiosis in the reproductive organs of one or both parents, but the embroys in the eggs would be the first individuals of the species to actually express the mutations and therefore would be the first to actually be the new species once sufficient mutations piled up.

          In other words, the egg is 100% chicken, the bird that laid it only 99.99999999999999999% chicken. smile

  10. profile image0
    Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago

    It depends what you mean by "right."  If you mean which gives your life a meaning, and the possibility of an afterlife, then I would go for creation.  This belief has the advantage of not needing any evidence to support it, so you will not have to put in the research or look objectively at the evidence.  All you are required to do with this belief, is to say 'I believe.'

    If by "right," you mean, which one is supported by very real evidence, then evolution is the one to go for.  However, this will necessarily rule out the need for a creator and the hope that this offers for an afterlife.  People, who cannot come-to-terms with reality usually opt for creationism.  This provides their lives with a meaning that may not be available to those who accept only the evidence that evolution is fact.

  11. www.lookseenow profile image60
    www.lookseenowposted 6 years ago

    Not evolution, because no transitional forms have ever been found in the fossil records.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No god fossils either, for that matter.  lol

    2. profile image0
      Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No transitional fossils found?  Not true, I'm afraid.

      http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

    3. TMMason profile image63
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They only accept the science that they can twist into some form of assumptive evidence for their faith and belief in Evolution.

      We have been through the fossil record BS, and the DNA BS, and all the rest, and still they claim it proves something.

      Which it does... it proves that it takes a lot of faith to believe in Human Evolution as espoused by the Atheist left.

      And as to there being transitional fossils in the record... there are not.

      and this sums up the validity of the so called evidence... "current best educated guess"

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        TM, I'm sure you'd love to read more about this rooster. His name is Obama. http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/raising-chickens

      2. profile image0
        Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So, I am to make my mind up, by comparing the evidence of professional scientists on the one hand, who after 150 years of fossil collecting, have built up a huge amount of evidence for evolution, and on the other, a Christian fundamentalist, who says 'God done it.'  I'm sorry Mason, but this choice is easy.

        1. TMMason profile image63
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Actually you don't have to believe anything Sherl.

          I will repeat it again for the umpteenth time, evolution within a species exists, for modifications and adaptations, but that does not equate to the over-arching theory you all try to push.

          That is very simple.

          And all the "evidence" you all pull out is open to varied interpretation. And many in the fields of science do not agree with the current evolutionary biologist's interpretation BS.

          And we have all had this coversation before... so what is the point?

          1. Evolution Guy profile image60
            Evolution Guyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOL Liars for Jesus. Wot "evidence" u got innit? lol

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Explain to me how "Digging up a fossil and dating it with half-lifes" is BS.

        Explain to me how "Finding out that 97% of the DNA of other primates is the same as the human DNA" is BS.

        Explain to me "there are documented cases of observed speciation" is BS.

        Explain to me how the following images of fossils of missing links are BS:



        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5340660_f248.jpg


        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5340663_f248.jpg



        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5340676_f248.jpg



        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5340677_f248.jpg




        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5340681_f248.jpg



        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5340690_f248.jpg

        And finally:
        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xjcwwA-nj8k/T … ls-win.jpg

        1. profile image0
          Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Don't start bringing evidence into the argument, it will only confuse the simple-minded.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol lol

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Did you guys see the last link?

        2. moneycop profile image70
          moneycopposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          good buddy ryt question ..missing links..i like it..i had mentioned the same.

  12. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Hey, we got chickens that lay blue eggs and the rooster always comes before the egg does.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ha!lol  Do you know why a chicken runs away from the rooster?smile

  13. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    I'll bite, why does the chicken run from the rooster

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So the other chickens won't think she's a whore!  smile

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Here's the answer I gave on the other page, Stump.  smile

  14. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    That man has a huge Cock...............................................................................................................................................a doodle doo

  15. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Thats good cause I think that bird has me beat

  16. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Sorry got distracted, go ahead Randy, I'm biting again.

  17. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Evolution or creation?

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5343546_f248.jpg

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He didnt evolve too well ,did he lol

      1. Woman Of Courage profile image59
        Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Lol, smile

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          wink

  18. Bubblegum Senpai profile image85
    Bubblegum Senpaiposted 6 years ago

    Personally, I think evolution is true - to a point. Evolution explains how life changes over periods of time. Everything about evolution breaks down and is no longer applicable at "beggining of life." The idea that some amino acids - the proper amino acids, no doubt - managed to somehow bond together to form a protein, and then a group of proteins bonded together to form information (DNA), and then bonded with like-minded information to create cells and so on has very little to do with evolution.

    How about this - creation as a possibility, and evolution is evidence of divine intervention?

    I don't really know, since I'm agnostic (pun intended), but it is actually possible that evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, and creation are all true. It just seems atheists dogmatic as theists, hence why I'm at least willing to admit that there is no way to know.
    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5345495_f248.jpg

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image70
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yea, my thinking is close to what youre thinking...I think lol

    2. moneycop profile image70
      moneycopposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't belief its logical to go with evolution theory blindly as it has still 100's of question to be answered

 
working