Evolution of man? In your own opinion which one the scientific or biblical way?
Answers:
Lets put one thing straight first.
PURE Science and PURE Religion do not contradict each other
Evolution is a Scientific THEORY it is NOT Pure Science.
God has Created Rules and follows them.
God is Logical he does not contradict himself.
There is only ONE True Religion.
Its only pure if it is true
If it is not a fact it is a theory only
And Theories are false till proven true.
I have been studying Science for the last 10 years
and as for the Theory of Evolution, it is Just that a Theory.
it is basically like trying to guess what a picture is by only looking at less than one percent of the whole picture.
There are millions of species alive today, and many more species have gone extinct over the history of this planet. also out of the billions of single life forms that have lived on this planet very few Fossils have actually been discovered.(this is the <1%)
these fossils that have been discovered have been used to map out a Theory of Evolution composed of Plateus (rungs of a ladder or steps on a staircase, but with nothing connecting the steps or rungs together) of species. But there are no fossils that have been found that are between these Plateus. for the Theory to ever become a Fact what is reqired is to find fossils that clearly show the change of one species into another (rope, rope-ladder(rungs), or chain of fossil evidence, when graphed will show a slope with horizontal flat sections) or for some currently living animal to give birth to something that is unable to reproduce with the Mother species but is able to reproduce with one that is identical to it.
An Evolutionary-Mutation would be fertile,but would have a completely different Genome from the Parent Species, unlike a normal mutation which damages the genetic code leaving the child infertile or with severe birth defects that ussually end in death, example is a mule which is the cross between a donkey and a horse. though it is similar to the parent species it is unable to reproduce with either species or with other crosses. it is therefor infertile and therefor it is a mutation and is not considered a new species.
Many people have tried to claim that the Finches of Galapagos Island and other areas of the world are able to evolve. This is not the case all it is is a case of specialization. it is simply a case of rececive genes taking dominance through variences in food availability. (the differences noticed in the Finches have been beak sizes and shapes).
As food availability changes the finches that have the genes which will enable them to make the best use of the available foods will gain dominance over those finches whose beak genes are specialized toward the food that is out of season or no longer available. therefor the average shape of the beaks will change over time in acordance to what food is readily available.
The finches have not changed species thay have just become specialized within their species. tThis can also cause some Genes to become extinct within a Species or Race. this is why "Race" could even be concidered to exist. Can make the Species Stronger or weaker based on what genes are lost over time.
On the other hand if the finches were no longer able to reproduce with the parent species but were only able to reproduce with other finches with the same beak size and shape then that Would mean that they had undergone Evolutionary-Mutation.
But this could only be tested in a Labratory under Precice Conditions.
Evolution is a theory that all living creatures evolved from some a common evolutionary ancestor.
Evolution also states that this creature evolved from rocks and rain. the reverse steps are
Animals and Plants
Single Celled Organism
Prehistoric Cell, Mitocondria, and Chloroplasts
Ooze that contains building blocks of life
Rocks and Acid Rain
Lava and Gases from volcanoes.
That is what unpure-science claims you evolved from, in that order.
And since religion gives the only other alternative i'll have to go with the belief that we ARE created by God.
after all how does a quatinary biological programing language (DNA) that works actually come into existance by accident.
there is too much order in the universe for it to have just happened.
and even though there is the theory that an organism arrived on earth via a comet or asteroid it still had to come from some where and if you are saying it evolved it still came from a rock.
Scientific theory of Evolution.
scientific
Combination of the two, no one knows how god truly works
Neither can be proven, Both have too many things in them that have to be taken on faith or hope. Maybe a combination of both is true.
Scientific, if there were only two of us to start the whole thing off (adam and eve) there would be some serious inbreeding going on.and anybody in the habit of procreation would be involved with incest.
What my dad said to me kinda made since in both ways that god created everything, not how they are today, but how it would look in the evolution stages and the animals just evolved from that, to how they are today. Cause it seems wierd that if scientists discovered evoulution and it's proof, and that the Bible says that god created man.To me it seems logical to believe in both.
The Bible is to be interpreted - as are all Holy books. If it were not it would really lead to some bizarre outcomes!
Bill Hicks: "Ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?"
lol
I say science. Because I think many people are mulling over the same issues . I say science because there is more psychical proof. I would like to think they are both true. But just that Adam and eve maybe were not the people the bible made them seem to be. maybe more apelike. If they didnt exist why are there bones here. If all this scientific proof is not real ..why are we finding it . to question our faith for a thousand years. I think the science gives people some freedom.
a fetus has gills from when we evolved from fish that go away and leave part of your sinuses. your appendix is from when we used to be able to eat vegetation unlike what we can now, (it had a strong bacterium in it), if you leave a breed in the dark for a few generations they sometimes turn albino- they evolve and adjust to there surroundings.
i like the idea of an all knowing god, and its a nice idea. it could be hogwash tho with the scientific evidence.
Both it's the way you look at it.
biblical
scientific way.
I prefer to believe that we were created by a Being of superior intelligence. Most people would call Him God, but that's not His actual name. His name is unpronouncable. I just call Him Dad, or Father, we have a close and informal, but respectable relationship.
Anyone who believes that man crawled out of a puddle of ooze, and developed into a creature who ate his own feces, and drank his own urine in his early stages of development like some sort of monkey, well, I hope it tasted good for you.
I was created by God.
The scientific is not all that scientific.It is not like some equation in physics that can be verified by experimentation.We only guess through a few fossils.At the moment ,Bible is as good a guess as any.
I believe in creationism since it is more logical in all facets if you truly study the independent theories. While I do agree that I cannot prove that God created the world, an evolutionist has the exact same dilemma. In fact, one has to believe that something existed in the beginning of time, some one or thing that had no beginning, whether that be the "first atom" or God. Further, all things came into existence through that creator. be it God or the atom. However, to believe that an asexual reproducer transformed into "two" sexual reproducers with distinct characteristics that are independent of one another. but totally reliant on one another. is a huge leap of faith. Just think about it for a minute. how could a male and its female counterpart "evolve" at the exact same time through "natural selection"? Would the female reproductive organs have been aware of the male's reproductive organs and been able to control their shape and functions? The probablities for such a conclusion do not mathematically exist. so. what one is left with is this. evolution or creation. both are faith-based. Thus, I choose to acknowledge my Creator.
Creation! - but if someone says they decended from apes don't argue with them - they know their family better than you lol
I didn't decend from apes but natural selection and survival of the fittest does come into play as well.
Science.
Documented, demonstrated, and no need to lie to defend it.
I can not give credence to most of the answers here, even those that support evolution. The question asks, " in your own opinion ". That is the point. The scientific way is not about opinion, it is not based upon opinion. It is empirical investigation based on evidence. There is no comparison to be made between what is empirical supported, science, and what is not, the so called " biblical way ".
BIBICAL! We ARE NOT an accident that resulted from some big blast! We were created by God. The human mind, the beauty of the world, the emotions we feel, all these different kinds of animals and feelings and things, these things are WAY to complex to exist by chance.
Biblical science is at most theory
Biblical comes first, I feel that it all goes together some how, we just do not have all the pieces of the puzzle..
Here is thought...
The Scenarios for Man's OriginTo date, most scientists, and much of the general public, have accepted only one scenario for human origins, namely, the evolutionary scenario. With it being the only scenario under consideration, it is not surprising that many scientists regard human evolution as a fact. Again, given the recent developments in cosmology, astronomy, and physics, we are lead to consider an additional scenario, the biblical scenario. If the biblical scenario is truly without merit, it will not be supported by the scientific data and can be discarded. However, if it is consistent with the scientific evidence, then it deserves to be considered as a legitimate, scientific alternative to evolution regardless of the implications it has to non-Christian worldviews and philosophies.
The link below has some good thought on it...
Why limit the question to just two choices? There's biological evolution, the Genesis, the Enuma Elish, the Kojiki, the Eddas, Tepeu and Gucumatz, Coatlique, Heaven's Gate, several Gnostic versions and hundreds of others. There are, however just two categories: science-based theory and traditional creation myths (if you want to include the New Age cults that makes three categories). I'm not being flip - there are people who believe each of these ideas about humankind's origin. I'll stick with science.
Do people really believe in the biblical version of events?
The origin of mankind is not subject to 'operations science' - science which is testable and repeatable. This is the science that maps the genome, makes computers, etc.
'Origins science' is different - it cannot be proved by the scientific method.
Our beliefs about the past are framed by our philosophical worldview. Evolution and Creation are philosophical views, and science can be done within each framework.
Both camps have exactly the *same* evidence. The question is, which framework provides the best scientific framework for the evidence.
If you check the evidence for yourself you might be surprised how easy it is to refute evolution.
And to answer the post above - yes people really do believe the Biblical account. It explains what we see, and is much more credible than the evolutionary fairy story!
the biblical way . because proof is in the maternity hospitals. two humans set off life; coming from fish or monkies is guess work,
and nothing els, nobody has ever wiynessed a fish growing legs and walking on land.its a desperat attempt to deny a superior inteligence by egotists
Scientific, 100%.
I tend to give a lot more credence to scientific thought than religious thought because the former is progressive and actively committed to finding and correcting errors in our understanding.
Science doesn't know everything. Scientists are always searching for answers, that is the whole point of being a scientist.
The Biblical model is not unscientific, it's just that people have interpreted it in an unscientific way. So when we read it for ourselves, we see that unscientific interpretation. However, the language of the Bible does allow for a universe that is many billions of years old and an Earth that is hundreds of millions of years old. The term day as it appears in the Genesis account can be contextually interpreted to mean an indefinite period of time. The fossil record tends to agree with Genesis in that specific species suddenly appeared then disappeared, without leaving any intermediary species to bridge the gaps.
I believe in Adam and Eve right, but I think that it must have been very difficult for them two to make so many babies not possible so therefore it has to be scientific.
Biblical
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.