Political Crossfire Forums

[drosera88]

Which of these make more sense,

1. Creation: They have the conclusion (genisis), so they find evidence to support it.

2. Evolution: They have the evidence, so they come to a conclusion based on the evidence.

3. Niether: (Explanation here)

Just wondering, hoping to start a debate.

[Patriot911]

Neither. There are holes in both theories. We don't know for sure how life started or what path it took. Anyone who claims they do is just blowing smoke because there is no way to know for sure.

Evolution has the evidence, but the evidence isn't complete. There are gaps and holes that evolution doesn't prove, but we have theories for.

Creation is more of a "gut feeling" type answer. It is hard to believe that all of nature in all of her diversity is all some big cosmic accident that has happened in the 4+ billion years this planet we call Earth has been around.

Personally, I go with the combo theory. Nature obviously isn't stagnant and changes over time, but given the complexity and diversity of nature, it is hard to believe there isn't something more going on that we aren't aware of rather than all of this starting by accident in some lukewarm pool of water with a bunch of amino acids in it.

[Enoch]

Patriot911 wrote: Neither. There are holes in both theories. We don't know for sure how life started or what path it took. Anyone who claims they do is just blowing smoke because there is no way to know for sure.

Evolution has the evidence, but the evidence isn't complete. There are gaps and holes that evolution doesn't prove, but we have theories for.

Creation is more of a "gut feeling" type answer. It is hard to believe that all of nature in all of her diversity is all some big cosmic accident that has happened in the 4+ billion years this planet we call Earth has been around.

Personally, I go with the combo theory. Nature obviously isn't stagnant and changes over time, but given the complexity and diversity of nature, it is hard to believe there isn't something more going on that we aren't aware of rather than all of this starting by accident in some lukewarm pool of water with a bunch of amino acids in it. I'm with you P911. I believe in a combination of evolution and creation.

My biggest question when I was a child, and still to this day haven't had sufficiently answered through science, was/is: If the big bang was just an explosion of matter, where did that matter originally come from?

There is a beginning to everything, and the universe is no exception. If one the prime laws of physics is that you can not create nor destroy energy, just transfer it, then the energy that brought about the explosion of matter in the big bang had to be transferred from somewhere.

It is my personal opinion that a higher power started it all through the big bang, then sat back and watched. When a little push here and there was needed, he/she/it helped evolution along its path.

[Zybthranger314]

I don't think this is a well presented question, as the options aren't talking about the exact same thing. Creation deals with the creation of the universe, and I guess a little with the progression of creatures. Evolution has to do with the development of organisms over vast amounts of time.

I think what you're meaning to say is Creation vs Big Bang Theory


And now opinions contributing to the discussion:
Can't say I like Creation taking literaly. Different interpretations of Creation; opinion depends on the interpretation. One thing that has always really bothered me about the Bible as literal truth, especially in reference to pre-history, is Where are the dinosaurs? I think most people agree that dinosaurs existed, and they're pretty big, so why aren't they mentioned ever?

Evolution is a pretty good theory. But, it has become such a controversial topic, that new discoveries are not being examined from a neutral viewpoint. I think what the scientists should be doing is looking for new evidence, but always trying to disprove the theory. If it's wrong, they should want to know as soon as possible. And that new discovery should provide new information that can give further insight.

Big Bang (not mentioned in the original post, but somewhat implied) is a decent theory. With the factors involved in the theory, it makes sense that some of the things seem counter-intuitive. Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics ..... they all have strange sounding stuff. But based off of our observation that the matter in the universe all seem to be moving away from a cetral point, the theory seems a logical conclusion. There are definately problems with it, like most theories, but it does seem to explain the present state.

[Snake]

Neither. The theory of evolution teaches that we evolved from apes. I believe we evolved from a sub-species of humans.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Neither. The theory of evolution teaches that we evolved from apes. I believe we evolved from a sub-species of humans

No it doesnt - we share a hominoid branch of the primate tree with the apes. Examples, monkeys actual branch of after we do. So the old saying, I am a monkeys uncle, is in fact true lol

For the record I run with evolution and a pinch of God's plan :)

[The Newb]

neither has found conclusive evidence and both are faith based

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: neither has found conclusive evidence and both are faith based

Please feel free to point out what elements of the theory of evolution might be based on faith

[The Newb]

faith in science and that there is a missing link somewhere

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: faith in science and that there is a missing link somewhere

There was speculation, that is becoming increasing less likely - Hardly and act of faith

[Medius]

Patriot911 wrote: Neither. There are holes in both theories. We don't know for sure how life started or what path it took. Anyone who claims they do is just blowing smoke because there is no way to know for sure.

Evolution has the evidence, but the evidence isn't complete. There are gaps and holes that evolution doesn't prove, but we have theories for.

Creation is more of a "gut feeling" type answer. It is hard to believe that all of nature in all of her diversity is all some big cosmic accident that has happened in the 4+ billion years this planet we call Earth has been around.

Personally, I go with the combo theory. Nature obviously isn't stagnant and changes over time, but given the complexity and diversity of nature, it is hard to believe there isn't something more going on that we aren't aware of rather than all of this starting by accident in some lukewarm pool of water with a bunch of amino acids in it.

Hey, we are in perfect agreement. Quick, take a screenshot :shock:

Patriot's view is a great explanation of my take on things. Evolution has evidence, which cannot be discounted. Its existence however, does not preclude the existence of a higher being that initiates or molds natural processes into a creative force.

I tend to liken it to a computer. Man builds a computer (the universe), which by itself is a blank slate with basic rules of interpretation (natural processes such as physics). In order to create a program (life) in the computer, he doesn't physically build things, but rather uses the processes in place to coax signals to be passed through the basic rules to gain results.

[Free Thinkr]

Kamel wrote: Neither. The theory of evolution teaches that we evolved from apes. I believe we evolved from a sub-species of humans.
Humans are apes.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Hey, we are in perfect agreement. Quick, take a screenshot



I already have lol - and that makes three of us? Hope this doesn't ruin reputations

[LostSoul3412]

Our path to ascension is irrelevant.

Only our position now has meaning.