Evolution or creationisium? what do you think?
and tell me why?
Answers:
Evolution, there are clear fossil records that show the transistional stages of dinosaurs to birds and fish to legged creatures. There is always the argument that life is far too complex to have happened purely by chance, but I find it more unlikely that something so complex could be designed from a blank sheet of paper without errors.
Of all fossils found and studied, there is no support for evolution - its a theory. No fossils show transitional states.
Evolution is logical and scientific.
Creationism is magical and physically impossible.
I go with logic and reason over imagination every time.
evolution definetly. The evidence is there
I believe that God allows us to find out what he wants us too. He made the human race to be very intelligent. Therefore, I think it is possible that evolution and creationism can coexist. If you really want to do some reading in it, here are some good books. Be blessed!
Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief - Francis S. Collins
Creationism.
Evolution is preached at us like another religeon.
There has been intervention somewhere along the line because evolution has occurred so quickly and suffered some major tradgedies. Certain species also occur with unexplainable DNA. But whether its by God or by Aliens I have no idea. The cheetah is like a cat with dog like hair how did that happen, when the two species are unable to interbreed. I smell a rat with evolution but we may never find the answer. But the laws of evolution scientifically speaking are sound they are just a few too many anomalies.
Evolution
it has many examples of proof that it occurs
creationism has no proof
they say that the complexity of the flagella on a bacterium is proof, but it probably took a hell of a long time for it to develop this important feature for its survival
but if you or anyone else wants to believe in creationism then go ahead, just dont try to force your beliefs on anyone else, for that would be wrong
Evolution. There's no controversy about it in the scientific community. Scientist just go where the evidence leads them. When scientist of different disciplines (like geology and astronomy) come to the same conclusion, you've got some pretty convincing evidence. Evolution has filled in a lot of gaps and made some specific predictions which have been verified. It's just good science, where the truth is determined by evidence, not by popular vote or by referring to the Bible.
creationism, because all of this couldn't have just gotten here
'creationisium'? Clearly you have failed to evolve.
Creationism. Because of what the bible says about it in the first book of the bible called Genesis.
Evolution is only a theory. never really has any proof despite what some scientists might tell you. If man evolved from apes as some like to think then why haven't the rest of the apes evolved! I would not even insult myself by saying I came from an ape when God says "Let us make man after our own kind after our own image". He didn't say let us make ape after our own kind! I rather believe that than what evolutionists say.
Evolution. My reasons why are unimportant, the fact that the question was posed and people are able to express their views without violence is the miracle.
For everything there is there is a creator- there is no logic, reason or evidence to show that anything came from nothing. There is nothing on earth that you can show me that did not have a creator behind it- even if you took pieces of something, there is no way, no matter what conditions you putr them in or around, you are going to have anything valuable come of it without planning and purpose. Everything you see has purpose and has been planned out in design and purpose- that proves a creator behind that plan and purpose.
As far as evolution goes- there are just no facts to support the claims and many of the claims are based on lies and deception that many do not even recognize , here are some interesting facts to ponder :
I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:
http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did.
here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :
Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).
Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).
What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).
"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com
Neither.
Evolution is not a theory of science. It is what is called a 'paradigm' (a way of assuming the world must be). It's assumptions are that 'evolution' must have occurred, and its exponents then set about trying to 'explain' how it happened - often with highly dubious evidence.
Creation is not a theory of science also. It is a matter of faith.
Now, between these two things is the scientific question of - if evolution is a philosophical paradigm (not a theory) and if creation is an article of religious faith, what does science tell us about the history of living things ? I believe it tells us that evolution (so called) has definitely NOT happened. Species have NOT evolved from others. (In fact, despite the ability if species to change form, size etc. the remain the same species in nature that have existed since these creatures first arrived in the fossil record). What is the 'evolutionary history' of the plants such as ferns, oak trees, etc. to name but a few. THERE IS NO SUCH FOSSIL HISTORY. They did NOT evolve.
As for dinosaurs and other forms, these can be shown to have been mutated forms of still existing species. Those forms were reversed by later inbreeding with unaffected populations of the same species. There is, also, no 'evolutionary history' of dinosaurs. They too did not 'evolve'.
Finally, the evolutionist never tells us plainly what he means by 'evolution'. Nor does he tell us what he means by 'species'. These crucial subjects are simply glossed over as he points to highly selective and unrepresentative evidence. Genetics (resisted by all evolutionists in its early days) has shown clearly that species are remarkably stable organisms despite their ability to change from place to place and from environment to environment. Darwin was hugly ignorant of many facts and it is really about time that his 'theory' was rejected in favour of the stability/permanance of all species. Such a theory is entirely consistent with creation. Every seed bringing forth (only) of its own kind.
Best wishes
should i let her know?
Does anyone recall their past life?
If it`s true that you learn something new every day,what have you learnt today?
UFOs and aliens..u belive in them?
ever been caught with your pants down?
Euthanasia? should there be compulsary Euthanasia and at what age, and should we allow voluntary Euthanasia?
Ginger people have no souls. Discuss.?
Should anthropology have an ethical stance?
Answers:
Evolution, there are clear fossil records that show the transistional stages of dinosaurs to birds and fish to legged creatures. There is always the argument that life is far too complex to have happened purely by chance, but I find it more unlikely that something so complex could be designed from a blank sheet of paper without errors.
Of all fossils found and studied, there is no support for evolution - its a theory. No fossils show transitional states.
Evolution is logical and scientific.
Creationism is magical and physically impossible.
I go with logic and reason over imagination every time.
evolution definetly. The evidence is there
I believe that God allows us to find out what he wants us too. He made the human race to be very intelligent. Therefore, I think it is possible that evolution and creationism can coexist. If you really want to do some reading in it, here are some good books. Be blessed!
Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief - Francis S. Collins
Creationism.
Evolution is preached at us like another religeon.
There has been intervention somewhere along the line because evolution has occurred so quickly and suffered some major tradgedies. Certain species also occur with unexplainable DNA. But whether its by God or by Aliens I have no idea. The cheetah is like a cat with dog like hair how did that happen, when the two species are unable to interbreed. I smell a rat with evolution but we may never find the answer. But the laws of evolution scientifically speaking are sound they are just a few too many anomalies.
Evolution
it has many examples of proof that it occurs
creationism has no proof
they say that the complexity of the flagella on a bacterium is proof, but it probably took a hell of a long time for it to develop this important feature for its survival
but if you or anyone else wants to believe in creationism then go ahead, just dont try to force your beliefs on anyone else, for that would be wrong
Evolution. There's no controversy about it in the scientific community. Scientist just go where the evidence leads them. When scientist of different disciplines (like geology and astronomy) come to the same conclusion, you've got some pretty convincing evidence. Evolution has filled in a lot of gaps and made some specific predictions which have been verified. It's just good science, where the truth is determined by evidence, not by popular vote or by referring to the Bible.
creationism, because all of this couldn't have just gotten here
'creationisium'? Clearly you have failed to evolve.
Creationism. Because of what the bible says about it in the first book of the bible called Genesis.
Evolution is only a theory. never really has any proof despite what some scientists might tell you. If man evolved from apes as some like to think then why haven't the rest of the apes evolved! I would not even insult myself by saying I came from an ape when God says "Let us make man after our own kind after our own image". He didn't say let us make ape after our own kind! I rather believe that than what evolutionists say.
Evolution. My reasons why are unimportant, the fact that the question was posed and people are able to express their views without violence is the miracle.
For everything there is there is a creator- there is no logic, reason or evidence to show that anything came from nothing. There is nothing on earth that you can show me that did not have a creator behind it- even if you took pieces of something, there is no way, no matter what conditions you putr them in or around, you are going to have anything valuable come of it without planning and purpose. Everything you see has purpose and has been planned out in design and purpose- that proves a creator behind that plan and purpose.
As far as evolution goes- there are just no facts to support the claims and many of the claims are based on lies and deception that many do not even recognize , here are some interesting facts to ponder :
I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:
http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did.
here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :
Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).
Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).
What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).
"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com
Neither.
Evolution is not a theory of science. It is what is called a 'paradigm' (a way of assuming the world must be). It's assumptions are that 'evolution' must have occurred, and its exponents then set about trying to 'explain' how it happened - often with highly dubious evidence.
Creation is not a theory of science also. It is a matter of faith.
Now, between these two things is the scientific question of - if evolution is a philosophical paradigm (not a theory) and if creation is an article of religious faith, what does science tell us about the history of living things ? I believe it tells us that evolution (so called) has definitely NOT happened. Species have NOT evolved from others. (In fact, despite the ability if species to change form, size etc. the remain the same species in nature that have existed since these creatures first arrived in the fossil record). What is the 'evolutionary history' of the plants such as ferns, oak trees, etc. to name but a few. THERE IS NO SUCH FOSSIL HISTORY. They did NOT evolve.
As for dinosaurs and other forms, these can be shown to have been mutated forms of still existing species. Those forms were reversed by later inbreeding with unaffected populations of the same species. There is, also, no 'evolutionary history' of dinosaurs. They too did not 'evolve'.
Finally, the evolutionist never tells us plainly what he means by 'evolution'. Nor does he tell us what he means by 'species'. These crucial subjects are simply glossed over as he points to highly selective and unrepresentative evidence. Genetics (resisted by all evolutionists in its early days) has shown clearly that species are remarkably stable organisms despite their ability to change from place to place and from environment to environment. Darwin was hugly ignorant of many facts and it is really about time that his 'theory' was rejected in favour of the stability/permanance of all species. Such a theory is entirely consistent with creation. Every seed bringing forth (only) of its own kind.
Best wishes
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.