Which is true - Creationism or Evolution? Can both be right?

1. 81

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 9 years ago

   Which is true - Creationism or Evolution?  Can both be right?
   
   It seems there are still arguments about whether the world was 'created' or whether it 'evolved.' What do you believe? Can you also accept the alternative view?

   replyreport
2. 86

   Austinstarposted 9 years ago

   I really don't understand why this is a choice. What possible difference does it make whether we were "created" by a god or by evolution or by a god-created evolution.
   Evolution is simply a branch of science that studies the natural world of change over time. Evolutionists do not even care how life developed in the universe, they just want to try and understand the natural mechanisms of life.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      feenixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Lela, excellent comment. I fully agree with what you wrote.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, feenix :-)

      replyreport
   3. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I second that.  Evolution was in fact creation.  The two components aren't mutually exclusive.

      replyreport
   4. 86

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is the STUDY of life. It's a scientific method, not a "thing". It is not creation itself which no one knows the definitive answer to.  Creationism is a "belief", not a study. You can state that it is fact, but that doesn't make it so.

      replyreport
3. 0

   Stargrrlposted 9 years ago

   I believe that both could have existed.  God created everything, that I am sure of...but perhaps He created things to evolve.  It's all part of God's plan.

   replyreport
4. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 9 years ago

   I've never understood why it's so important to (know) everything. Some things are better off left as a mystery.
   The ego demands there be a right or wrong. Live and let live.
   Once upon a time I heard someone say;
   "Having faith means never asking how."
   We're here lets just make the most of our time.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well, basically it doesn't matter how we all got here. It's like, we're here, we're queer, let's just deal with it!

      replyreport
5. 57

   Jane Errposted 9 years ago

   IF we were created, then by definition we are AI......spooky isn't it?

   replyreport
6. 74

   tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

   
   
   It takes faith to believe either and frankly I don't have enough faith to believe evolution which scientifically doesn't even qualify as a theory. Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.
   
   Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.
   
   Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.
   
   Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
   
   Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.
   
   Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.
   
   Ultimately, we have no need for a theory about the origin of life and the universe. God, our Creator, gave us a perfect, factual account of how and when He created, and how humanity came to be. While we can—and should—study His universe, He graciously provided the proper framework to truly understand—the Bible.
   
   Evolutionary ideas are simply one way in which humans seek to deny God’s authority. In fact, all of us have rebelled from Him and deserve death. But because of His great love, God provided a means of being rescued through His Son, Jesus Christ, so that we may be made right with Him again.
   
   Both can't be right.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      aravindb1982posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Loved many points you make here....
      
      Whether it is an "intelligently designed evolution" or an "evolving intelligent design", there is definitely "intelligence" seen. That none can deny - call that intelligence by any name - God, Consciousness, etc.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Naturalism,the"belief"of today's mainstream scientists,rules out an "intelligently designed evolution"or"evolving intelligent design"Science,following the facts wherever they lead,does point to an intelligent (that's an understatement) creator.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "It takes faith to believe either" The theory of evolution is not based on faith. It's a conclusion based on observable data. In much the same way that crossing the street isn't based on faith. You observe there are no cars coming, then you cross.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      Levi Legionposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The difference between evolution and creation is this: evolution will change it's conclusions when new facts are presented. Biblical creation will not change as new facts become available because...uh...the Bible says! Don't question, you peon!

      replyreport
7. 75

   Caleb DRCposted 9 years ago

   Hello Marcy,
   
   I believe God created the universe, and all that it contains.  The Bible validates micro-evolution, but it denies macro-evolution. I believe God designed micro-evolution into His creation. Evolution is based upon the conjecture that random processes can build structure, but any significant ordered structure built by random processes is a mathematical impossibility.
   
   No, I cannot accept the alternative view any more than I can believe a skyscraper can build itself.

   replyreport
8. 69

   Radical Rogposted 9 years ago

   Tsad is right. Evolution is a religion requiring faith and belief equal to creation. But you should read the Secret Book of John, one of the Gnostic gospels, by the same John that wrote Revelation, though not in the bible because it reveals what most religions don't want people to know.
   Revelation is a conclusion, his Secret Book reveals the beginning, evolution on a spiritual level. God evolved, but not the god of Abraham and Moses. He came later.

   replyreport
9. 83

   M. T. Dremerposted 9 years ago

   There are certain models where someone could try to weave them together, but the problem is that they are fundamentally different concepts. Evolution is a biological conclusion based on what we can observe about life, both past and present. It isn't a guess about the beginning of all things, rather it's the equivalent of looking at an apple on the ground and concluding that it fell from the apple tree above it. By contrast creationism seeks to answer the question of where the apple tree came from.
   
   Which, in itself, is a noble endeavor, but the problem is it assume its conclusion based on no evidence at all. I could say that the apple tree came from an animal passing by that dropped the seed, but without evidence of that event, it's a complete stab in the dark. And that's the difference between them. Evolution is an observation in the puzzle of life. Creationism is a total stab in the dark. They can co-exist, there is just no point in categorizing guesses with conclusions.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Freaking awesome answer! I'm so glad some people have the brains to understand the differences and reasons between the two concepts! Thank you for an explanation that even a grade school student should be able to understand.

      replyreport
10. 67

    lawrence01posted 9 years ago

    There will always be these arguments. The reason is no matter how much evidence is presented by either side the other side will always find a loophole. The last few weeks I've been looking into whether the earth is really as old as evolution says it is. It's amazing but the evidence actually does point to an earth much younger than what the Big Bang and evolutionary theory says it is.
    Two of the areas I've covered so far are sedimentary rocks and Distant starlight. Actually there it was stunning as I discovered that the distant starlight and the Horizon problem actually shows that the Big bang model we have can't be true (evolutionists usually say that it's the creationists that have the problem with Distant starlight but the truth is both have problems) the amazing thing is that both have come up with the same theory!!
    By the way I believe in creation, I'm not 100% sure it was a literal six  twenty four hour days but I believe in creation and I believe it wasn't four billion years ago but for more I'd suggest you look up my Hubs "Young earth, sedimentary rocks" and "Young universe. Distant starlight"
    Hope you don't mind me mentioning the hubs
    Lawrence

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Blessed Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Hey Lawrence,
       kiwi's rock! I like your reasoning. I also have struggled with the whole 24 hour six day creation belief. I have a hub where I discuss a revelation I believe God gave me called " Creation in seven days, or was it?" .

       replyreport
11. 50

    tt02posted 7 years ago

    In my limited analysis, I see a growing number of scientists jumping on the abiogenesis bandwagon, using tests on RNA formation from non-organic chemicals as a means of saying life created from nothing.  However, upon deeper review, I interpret the research to prove a shocking reality that there is a pre-disposition for life within the universe, validating intelligent design, which many attribute to an intelligent Designer, which many also call God.  In looking at the number of particles in the universe, we get a limited understanding of the odds-based principle, with 1x10 90-98 particles in the known universe.  That is a LOT of particles, when one considers recent discoveries from the new global telescope through the Hubble project uncovering 100 billion galaxies in "blank" parts of space.  As such, looking at odds-based chances for life as we know it (perhaps there is sulfur-based life, etc), most analysis show over 1x10 1000 chances for the finite view of creating life as we know it.  again, this further supports a propensity for the universe to create 'something' out of 'nothing'.  It really comes down to faith in most scientific analysis.  However, there are other means of interpretation that really make it subjectively obvious to me that there is a personified Creator.

    replyreport