What are opinions of whether evolution or the Adam and Eve thing is real?

Answer 1

Adam and Eve is definitely the real thing. If you read The Bible God talks about certain things that scientist are still figuring out today, so if God didn't create this world then how would he have known these things? Scientist can't even prove their own theories. It seems kind of silly to believe that everything was placed perfectly from some big bang theory. Scientific theories are only called theories because they can be modified not because they haven't been proven. It would not be called a theory unless it was tested throughly, for instance the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states heat is always lost. This has been proven. Also, the only way to take Adam and Eve into a realistic light is not to take everything literally. God created the earth, but defintely not in seven days. If you ask why he said he did, it is because when the Bible was written to be passed on to man, God would have known that we wold not understand the complexity of what he had done so a simple anctedote would suffice. It is not our job to understand everything; it is God's. In reality, any professional who is not ignorant will not say evolution isn't real he/she will say, common descent ( theory we all evolved from the same germ) is not real, that God has had a helping hand in most to all aspects of evolution which means he did in fact shape men with his bare hands. According to the biblical account, Adam and Eve were the first persons in creation and lived about 6,000 years ago, when the world was said to have been created. However, we have ample evidence of human settlements long before 6,000 years ago, meaning that the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the genealogies of their descendants are not literally true. We even know from Archaeology that human ancestors have lived on earth for millions of years - long before the time attributed to Adam and Eve. So the story of Adam and Eve is not real. On the other hand, evolution is based on fact, supported by numerous archaeological finds and scientific study. It is the best explanation for the world around us. A theory is a theory is a theory Back in the 80' there was a study about DNA which linked ALL of us together the scienctist at that time had named the common ancestor "Mother Eve"... the link below might provide some insight The ignorance of man and the intelligence of all... A scientific theory is quite different from a fact. A theory doesn't say THAT something happens (so the creationists are wrong here too), but attempts to explain HOW something happens. For example, the theory of gravity doesn't say THAT gravity happens (we can see that much without any theory), but attempts to explain HOW gravity happens. Why do all massive objects exert a gravitational pull on each other? That's what the theory of gravity seeks to answer.

The theory of evolution does not say THAT evolution happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution happens. That's what creationists don't get. They're trying to discredit the theory of evolution, but even if they somehow manage to do that, it doesn't change the fact that evolution is a scientific reality.

So when you ask "Is evolution real?" the answer is yes. It's been observed and cataloged. It is a fact.

When people say "It's just a theory", they are showing ignorance regarding what the word "theory" means to a scientist.

And when people say "The theory has been proven", they're ALSO showing ignorance regarding what the word "theory" means to a scientist.

And anybody who says that you can't accept evolution AND believe in God is doing a disservice both to science and to faith. And they're also wrong.

All in all, God has created Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and Great Plagues. But it was, and will always be Science that cure and save many lives. We will believe in whatever we choose. God or Science will always be irrational to people. But you cannot refuse that it was Science, that helped us live the way we do today.

Answer 2

One viewSome people think evolution as not real. The view is that the problem with other people thinking it's real just because science said so, but the people who don't think evolution is real believe that there are things people have found that prove evolution to be false.

First look at why they believe evolution to help you prove it wrong. The reason why they believe it is because science said they have proved it. I'm not against science, but evolution is not science. It's a fairy tale. I can tell you proof that it's wrong.

I will start with how the world is not millions of years old. If you ask an evolutionist 'How do you tell how old the fossils are?' he would say. "We date the fossils by the rocks" . If you ask "How do you know how old the rocks are?" he would say."Simple. We date the rocks by the fossils". Notice how at first he said we date fossils by the rocks and in the next question he said that they date the rocks by the fossils. That's circular reasoning. They date the rocks by the fossils and fossils by the rocks.

I used to believe that God made evolution. Now I know God made us in 7 days. Carbon dating is another way of telling how old a fossil is. Did you know they carbon dated two parts of a mammoth and one part was millions of years older than the other and they said "How could this be?" I know the answer to how it could be. Their carbon dating method does not work. Did you know they found human foot prints next to the dinosurs foot prints and the one person said "Come look at these foot prints; this means we were never apes" but the other people said they will not look at it and not accept it. They refused to deny evolution even if the proof was on the ground and that's what they do today, sadly.

Did you know there was a person who wrote a book about science, and his book was a top seller until some one looked at it and found out the book was proving evolution wasn't real? And after that they fired the person who wrote the book because he was proving that evolution was not real.

People try to protect the evolution theory. They did a calculation about how many people will be in the world if it's millions of years old and they found out that the planet population would be huge. There would be a human on every part of the planet. Did you know the earth is spinning slower and slower each year? That means it used to be spinning faster. They did a calculation where they saw how much the earth slowed down spinning each year, and then they did a calculation where they saw how fast it used to be spinning. What they found out was that if the earth was millions of years old, then the earth would have been spinning so fast that it would throw all life off the planet. You can use scientific proof of why evolution is wrong because that's why they believe: because of science.

Evolution is not science.

Another viewUnfortunately, many points in the above answer, besides not being scientifically based, are completely wrong.

• Paleobiologists do not date rocks by fossils. Rocks are dated via other methods, such as radioisotope dating. It sounds like the person answering above is confused about the concept of 'index fossils'. When a rock stratum has been studied thoroughly enough to know that certain fossils are only found in that particular layer, those fossils are then called 'index fossils', which enables a paleontologist working in a new site to have a quick idea what era the rocks he is working in come from. Independent verification of the strata are always eventually done---no rock layer is ever 'dated' by its fossils alone.
• The person answering also has no clear idea what carbon dating is, and its limitations. No paleontologist uses carbon dating in specimens over 50,000 years old because it is useless after that. A carbon dating test could not possibly give a reading over 50,00 years, so the source for the previous answer about the mammoth is incorrect.
• Human footprints have never been found in strata contemporary with dinosaurs, except as the result of incompetent hoaxes.
• Apparently, the human population calculation referenced above forgot to take into account the fact that humans are mortal and require resources (which are in finite supply) to survive. That is why there aren't people covering the earth.
• The spinning earth part is so bizarrely wrong it is almost impossible to guess what the source was for such nonsense.

The first answer suggesting that evolution is not real is, unfortunately, pretty much baseless opinion.

AnswerEvolution teaches [correctly] that because of the Laws of Thermodynamics everything is cooling down. It follows that:

• Everything always flows from hotter bodies to cooler bodies.
• If the universe was infinitely old, the temperature throughout the universe would be uniform.
• It isn't, therefore it's not uniformly old.
• The universe had a beginning.

Answer 3

According to the biblical account, Adam and Eve were the first persons in creation and lived about 6,000 years ago, when the world was said to have been created. However, we have ample evidence of human settlements long before 6,000 years ago, meaning that the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the genealogies of their descendants are not literally true. We even know from archaeology that human ancestors have lived on earth for millions of years - long before the time attributed to Adam and Eve. So the story of Adam and Eve is not real.
On the other hand, evolution is based on fact, supported by numerous archaeological finds and scientific study. It is the best explanation for the world around us.

For more information on this debate, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 4

Here are some opinions for Creation or against Evolution.These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 5

Science should not be based simply on opinion. If there are no supporting facts, then evolution is not real, and we can move on to investigate other scientific issues. Fortunately for those who accept the reality of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming. Incontrovertible evidence is in the extensive fossil record, the DNA of all living things and even in the geological record. Scientists may propose opinion around the fine details of evolution, then search for evidence to support or refute that opinion, but the reality of evolution is an established fact.

On the other hand, those who do not accept the reality of evolution are relying on opinion and sometimes also a misunderstanding of science. Starting from a basic assumption that something that contradicts the Bible can not be true, they put forward opinions such as that the staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body can not have arisen by means of evolution, even over a period of billions of years. They assume that "mutations are harmful, not beneficial" but provide no evidence for such a sweeping statement. This is the hallmark of opinion.