0
Creation
Whether you believe God created the world or the universe is the result of the Big Bang, ask questions here about the creation of the beautiful and wondrous earth we live on.
2,055 Questions
How did the first Black human being come to be born?
After God destroyed the ungodly world by means of a global flood in Noah's day, the earth's new population, including all the races known today, developed from the offspring of Noah's three sons and their wives.
From which of Noah's offspring did the blacks race descend? "The sons of Cush [another one of Ham's sons] were Seba and Havilah and Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca." (Gen. 10:6, 7)
What might a creationist believe?
A Creationist might believe in a literal understanding of Genesis including its Creation-narrative. See also:
Is there evidence against Evolution
Why do creationists bury their head in the sand when asked a reasonable question?
Because they don't have the answer for it. Usually, though, they answer it with the phrase "God did it," "We will never know Gods ways," or my favourite, "That just proves you are a moron." Also many who do give up (which is more often than one would expect but not as often as they should) are not trained in the area they are discussing. There are some people, however, like Nephilimfree and GunneLPercher, who claim expertese in every subject known to man and will never give up even if every scientist on the planet tells them that what they are saying is impossible.
Can science explain creation and evolution?
There are two thoughts on the word creation 1. To make something from already existing materials 2. To bring into existence from nothing. As one cannot make something from nothing then the first idea must be the right one. The proper term for this is to organise and not create. The second part of your question regarding evolution is that all things evolved from some minute organism that suddenly came into existence, this is impossible. That evolution is still taking place must be considered in the light that all things are evolving. Man is taller,living longer. Girls are maturing at an earlier age. This is called The Law of Evolution. This is what we must think of when talking on this subject, the Law of Evolution
How can we reconcile the theory of evolution with the creation story in the Bible?
It is not possible to reconcile evolution with a literal reading of the creation story in the Bible. It is not even possible to reconcile a literal reading of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) with a literal reading of the second creation story (2:4b-2:20), although pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man that the first story simply reported.
Therein lies the clue. If millions of Christians can read the two creation stories without an awareness that they say completely different things, we ought to be able to use the same technique to read the Bible without a conscious awareness that this is not what really happened. All it takes is faith.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What is a sentence with the word biological evolution?
>The structural and well-organised gradual process of change means 'biological evolution'.
>Variation and heridity are two basic factors of evolution.
>In long term.evolution leads to existence of new species which have different characteristics than their ancestors.
What are the arguments for and against evolution?
The arguments for evolution are easy to sum up: virtually every observation in the scientific disciplines of biology and palaeontology.
The arguments against require a more nuanced approach. Many have been made, but on cursory inspection, they almost invariably appear to be based on misinformation, misconception, misrepresentation, misquoting or quote-mining, or willful ignorance. The least factually inaccurate (though still not in any way compelling) arguments against evolution so far are all in the category "we don't know yet, so evolution must be wrong."
Answer:
This answer is from a Creation-standpoint and not accepted as factual by most scientists. Creationists hold that:
1) The lack of transitional fossils has been noted by evolutionists, 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."
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings and Piltdown Man.
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.
5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.
6) Evolving of new 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.
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.
11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis.
12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans.
What is the difference between evolution and convergent evolution?
Evolution is the general theory itself, by which organisms change and adapt over time. Convergent evolution is a specific proces in which similar traits appear in unrelated organisms. For example, insects and birds both have wings but the two evolved independent of each other. That's convergent evolution.
What does the creation story tell us about the environment?
Answer The creation story from the Bible explains that the environment exists because it has been created by an all-wise, and almighty creator, who also wants humans to look after the environment responsibly. This also includes the impetus to scientific endeavour as many early scientists (who were creationists) saw themselves as "thinking God's thoughts after him".The environment has also been constructed in an orderly way, not as a result of millions or billions of years of random chance happenings and its design and complexity point to its maker. A number of thinkers have also pointed out that this very orderliness is not expected under the philosophy of naturalism but is an expected outcome of a created environment. Also, because it has been created, it is not to be worshipped -such belongs to its maker.
Distinguish creation theory with the evolution of man?
I can distinguish creation theory by saying that it is not a theory, but an ideology that has not a scintilla of evidence in support of it. Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is a fact. The theory of evolution, which is the nonrandom survival of randomly variant replicators, explains the fact of evolution. Naturally, man, being a animal is subject to evolutionary forces.
What are the theories of the origin of man?
To my limited knowledge of the scientific theory of the origin of man is that at some stage of earth's creation some form of life crawled from the sea. Many years later it became man through various stages of evolution. If one accepts this as being but one theory then one must accept that there are others. Remember that a theory does not contain all truth, but as the term suggests it is but a theory and is likely to change as new evidences are found.
If however one brings God into the equation then one will be bought nearer to the truth, that some power greater than man could organise man from the dust of the earth and put into him his spirit so that he became a living soul. One must also be mindful that the eagerly sought after "Missing Link", that is when the beast eventually became man has never been found.
What are the Differences between creation hypotheses and the theory of evolution?
Evolution is science and based on the best evidence available. Creation is religion and is part of so many different cultures that I am not sure which story you mean.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains much about the fact of evolution (things change over time) and is supported by massive amounts of evidence from both microbiology and the fossil record. There is no 'theory' of creation (creationism) because to be a theory it needs to be able to be testable and be able to make predictions, and creationism does neither of those. Most religions have their own creation myths and the differences between them are astounding. Creationism (also called "the theory of creation" "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design") have also been disproven for over a century.
What was the first age of earth?
Answer
According to the history as recorded in the Bible the first age of the earth was the ante-diluvian age or pre-flood age. This represents the period of time from the creation to the flood, a period of around 1,500 years according to the Bible chronology.
In geology the first earth age would be known as the Hadean, from 4.6 to 4 billion years ago. The Hadean was followed by the Archean, ending 2.5 billion years ago, which in turn was followed by the Proterozoic, ending about the time of the first metazoic (multiple celled) life, half a billion years ago.
Who was the first person or people on earth?
In the broadest sense, there was no "first person", even if we only ask who was the first person who was a modern human, a member of Homo sapiens. This is because we could not say definitively that this person was finally a Homo sapiens,but that his or her parents were still Homo erectus. Evolution is simply too gradual for such simple answers. What we do know is that the first Homo sapiens evolved over two hundred thousand years ago.
We could regard our Homo erectus ancestors as people, although not yet modern humans, or even their Homo habilisancestors as people. Many scientists regard their more ancient predecessors as too primitive and too different to really be people in the sense that we usually use the word. So there would be a broad consensus that Homo habilis were the first people on earth.
What evidence do scientists use to prove that evolution has occurred?
Simple example. You know hair color is under genetic control. Two types, blond ( which is recessive ) and brown ( which is dominant ) exist in our population. These two alleles are in a 75% to a 25% frequency. ( dominant to recessive ) if that frequency changed to 60% to 40% you could say that evolution had taken place. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population of organisms over time. ( example very simplified )
PS Scientist do not prove things. They support their work with the evidence.
Why is evolution versus creationism such an issue?
Creationism is based on the Christian Bible - specifically the book of Genesis - and some interpretations of it as a literal record. Evolution (and more generally biology, and every other field of science) have demonstrated that the Bible, or at least that part of it, is not a literal record. Some see this as a threat to their interpretation of the Bible, and implicitly that it threatens the existence of their god.
This is not the case; creationists form a false dichotomy where either the Bible is perfect and God exists, or the Bible is not perfect and God does not exist. Moreover, creationists also form a doctrine that science (or evolution) and God are incompatible, despite the further fallacy this creates. Highly incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
It completely ignores the prospect of the Bible being allegorical and/or metaphorical in that section, while still allowing God to exist as recorded in other areas, and that the Bible should simply be interpreted differently. As to the second part, evolution says nothing about God. Nor does the rest of science. Many churches, notably the Catholic and Episcopal, have accepted that science validates evolution and that belief validates God. The two are nonoverlapping fields, and hence do not influence each other.
Belief in a deity of any kind is thus compatible with acceptance of scientific knowledge. Creationists refuse to accept this.
What is the scientific theory of creation?
The scientific theory of creation is not a recognized scientific theory. In science, the prevailing theory explaining the origins of the universe, Earth, and life is the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by a large body of evidence from various scientific disciplines such as biology, genetics, geology, and paleontology. Creationism, on the other hand, is a belief system rooted in religious or mythological explanations for the origins of the universe and life.
How do Creationists explain Ice Caps?
Creationists may perceive the presence of ice caps as a result of post-Flood conditions or natural cycles within a young Earth framework. They may attribute ice cap formation to a combination of localized climate factors or natural processes, rather than the long timescales proposed by mainstream science.
Why is the theory of evolution science but Creationism is not?
The reason for this is that the theory of evolution bases its facts on science, such as anthropology and research done by Darwin. Creationism is a direct belief in Christianity and therefore is based on religion. Creationism is not considered science because it is linked to religion which means that it does not hold truth to people outside of its religion. Science on the other hand is a worldwide field of study not limited to a group of people.
Answer 2
Creationism is NOT a direct belief in Christianity, because Jews and Muslims also believe in God and Creation. Also, it is not based on religion because you can make a good argument for creationism without saying a word of the Bible. Lets say scientists found out that there is definitely a god. That truth would be the same for everybody, regardless of if you agree. Truth is NOT relative, it is absolute and objective for everybody in every country and in every time.
Creationism is based on scientific (as well as moral) laws and principles. For example, there is such a thing as irreducibly complex objects. Cells are one example. If you take away the nucleus, DNA couldn't be formed/read. Same thing for RNA. Evolution can't explain irreducibly complex objects because the human body throws out any negative mutations. Let's say you have an eye socket in the back of your head, to make a 3rd eye. Because the eye is irreducibly complex, it would take generations to form lenses, an optical nerve, etc. The body will throw out the socket to begin with, because it is a waste of energy to create something for an organ that might not even appear.
Answer 3
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory because it is a comprehensive explanatory model that is verifiable through observation, consistent with all the available data, and which makes predictions about future observations that are again and again confirmed through new research.
Creationism is not because it is none of the above: it does not offer any explanations, it has no predictive power, it has no basis in the available data.
What do creationists believe about the origin of species and the earth?
Creationists believe that the origin of species is "God created all the different animals and races of humans in their separate areas and and they have never changed." The most famous ones are Michael Behe, Kent Hovind, and Kirk Cameron
Old Earth Creationists believe that the world is as old as the scientists say but nothing was on the planet until about 10,000 years ago (the difference between them and the Young Earth Creationists is that these people believe that the word "day" in Genesis doesn't mean 24 hours but a much longer period of time. The most famous of these are Hugh Ross and Glenn Morton.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the world is 6-10,000 years old and all the proof there is contrary to their opinion is fabricated evidence based on false science. The most famous of these are Michael Behe, Kent Hoving, and Kirk Cameron.
Geocentrist Creationists believe that the world is the centre of the solar system or the universe (depending on the one that is asked). The most famous of these are Nephilimfree and ShockofGod.
Flat Earth Creationists believe that the world is flat. The most famous of these are Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Tom Bishop.
How many people still believe in a flat earth?
It is difficult to determine an exact number, but the flat earth belief is considered a fringe theory with a small number of adherents compared to the majority who accept the round earth scientific consensus. Social media and online platforms have helped amplify their visibility, but they do not represent a significant portion of the population.
What evidence is there for the Divine Creation theory and for the theory of Evolution?
The theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains much of this fact.
My question to you. Which " theory " of divine creation do you mean?
Regardless.
There is no evidence for any of the myriad divine creation stories ( they are not theories in the scientific sense ). The theory of evolution by natural selection has a plethora of converging evidence lines supporting it. Read many of them here.
Some say all the species on the planet count as their own race, and since that would be to many to write down on here I will just go on to the next possibility.
Other people say that the races are "African" "Latino" "Caucasian" "Asian" "Indian" "Native American" "Aboriginal" and "Eskimo".
The second answer is most likely the one you are looking for.
How do evolution and creationism clash?
Creation
Cosmological Origins & Evolution
Cause
God was the Cause
For every effect, there is a cause. This argument is intuitively clear.
Evolution is not cosmology or asronomy - it makes no statement either way about how the universe began.
Origin
The universe was spoken into existence by God's Word.
Intuitive argument
As above; evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe.
Energy
We are devolving
Energy goes from a state of usable energy to less usable energy
Laws of Thermodynamics are not violated.
We are evolving biologically but universally entropy is increasing. Biological evolution is not happening in a closed system.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not violated.
Space
Earth created first (day 1)
Stars came afterwards (day 4) with the sun and moon.As above; evolution makes no statement regarding space, the other planets, the sun or any other celestial object.
Earth's
Covering
Water, prior to God forming the earth out of chaos
Earth formed from the accretion disk of rocky material orbiting the young sun. Originally molten rock, cooled to provide solid suface and oceans can form.
Time Constraints
6 Days - The creation of the World was finished in six days and is no longer taking place. Based on faith in Biblical account.
Cosmic time-frame. Expansion 15 billion years ago; earth formed by natural processes 4.6 billion years ago. The world is in a continuous process of change. Based on interpretation of available evidence.
Quality
Very Good
Mysterious, Violent, Able to be manipulated and studied.
Planning of
Life
By design
Random processes combined with constraints of available materials and energies.
Origin of
Life
God
Life comes from life (intuitive and observable), no known exceptions.
Forces of Nature
It is possible for life to come from non-life (not observable outside of geological time-frames).
Time needed
for Life
2 Days (Faith based) - all animal/human life was created on day 5 and 6.
Undetermined time; at least millions of years. Process is not fully known but a matter of continued research. Evidence driven.
Species
Kind begets kind. This is intuitively sound.
Organisms can be modified significantly over time, genotypically and phenotypically. Conclusions derived from evidence
Animal Life
Birds first, then
Reptiles
Reptiles first, then
Birds
Human Life
Man was created on day six
Man is made in the image of God.
Mammalian life becomes dominant 65 mya. Primates appear >10 mya. Homo genus diverges 5 to 7 mya. Homo sapiensappears 200 tya.
Beginning
of Death
After Adam sinned, not a process of creation - it is a product of man's sin.
Always present, part of the natural process. What is not observable (condition after death) cannot be known.
Cause of
Death
Sin. There was no death before Adam sinned (plant life not included), the breath of life was breathed into animals but not plants.
Natural process, existed from the beginning of life
Spiritual
Death
Both physical and spiritual, you will give an account of your life after you die.
Physical only; accountability is of no account from perspective of natural science. Many scientists are deeply religious, from every possible faith. But questions of Spiritual death are not within the realm of natural science. No clash with creationism.
Sediment Layers,
Canyons
Form rapidly (liquefaction). Witnessed during Mt. St. Helens. Based on interpretation of selected evidence.
Form at various speeds, but generally slowly. Based on interpretation of selected evidence.
Fossil Creation
Catastrophic events, rapid burial in water.Catastrohpic events, rapid burial in water followed by silt cover. Encapsulation in amber, or submersion in tar or other hydrocarbons.
Marine fossils on
Mountains
Global flood, Genesis account
Rapid 40 day/night event
Springs of the deep broken up
All creation perished
All mountains covered by at least 20 ft.
About 200 legends from cultures all over the world.
Local floods, earth sinking into the ocean and rising again, or original mountain formation from ocean floors or tidal basins.
Trees through
layers
Fossilized trees spanning many layers indicates rapid burial by water, observable with Mt. St. Helens. Can be created in one week.
Over many years plant life died, sank into the earth, and coal formed. Based on interpretation of selected evidence.
Coal, Oil,
Petrified
Wood
Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood, can all be made in a matter of weeks.
Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood take millions of years to form in nature. This cannot occur naturally in weeks. Based on interpretation of selected evidence.
Biblical Day
Recognize that the Biblical day means 24 hours and accept it as fact
Hebrew word "Yom", in all cases, means short period of time
defined to be evening and morning
days are distinguished between seasons and years (Genesis 1:14)
God's own word (Exodus 10:11)
writing style of Genesis is narrative, not poetic
genealogy of human race given
Some believe that the Biblical day means 24 hours but consider biblical accounts to be literary and non-scientific. Those who reconcile science and creation interpret Biblical days to mean millions of years. The actual length of the day changes throughout the year. The 24 hour period defined as mean (average) solar day. Astronomical evidence strongly suggests that the earth is slowing down over time, and days were considerably shorter than 24 hours in the earliest days of the planet.
Evolution and Creationism (often called Intelligent Design or ID) are two separate hypotheses describing how the world began. Neither Creation nor Evolution has been directly observed. Proponents of ID insist that not enough time has elapsed for any naturalist theory to account for the variety of life that has existed on earth. They do not hold to the Young Earth ideas of scriptural fundamentalists, so they are open to an understanding that the earth and the universe may be billions of years old. Science is based on experimentation and on man's observations of the physical universe, and as such, elements of the theory can be experimentally ruled out, but the theory itself cannot be proven. Most fundamental theories of science cannot be proven beyond all doubt. Evolution must be judged against the best available evidence and its interpretation, what could be called naturalist faith. Creationism must ultimately be taken on religious faith.
Creationism is the belief that the world was created (made from nothing) by God. According to the Bible, He spoke the world and life (plants, animals, insects, etc.) on the earth into existence during the course of six days [for those who hold to the Young Earth concept, a concept held in contempt by ID scientists]. Creationism is the belief of many Christians and is based on the first two chapters of Genesis, which detail God's firsthand account of creation as given to Moses through divine inspiration.
Evolution is the theory that the world's living things, even many that appear too diverse from one another to be related, have descended from some common ancestors far in the past. Over many millions of years, current life forms developed by way of the impact of electrical, biochemical, genetic and enviromental forces. Evolution itself addresses the diversity of life forms on earth and not origins of life itself. Various branches of organic chemistry and biochemistry are combining with physics and evolution theorists to explore various pathways to the origins of life. The theory of evolution was introduced by Charles Darwin in his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Evolution is currently the accepted theory of diversity by naturalists and humanists and by the great majority of scientists.
Choosing what to believe is often difficult. With little effort one may find information and 'proofs' on either side of the issue. This particular decision is further complicated by the fact that people from each position will examine the very same data and come to radically different conclusions from it. Creationists often challenge the methods used by field scientists in gathering dating or assembling of fossil and geological materials, and the ways of estimating the current age of the earth or of the universe.
Answer 2:
There are many who believe there is no clash between science and the Bible. If God created everything, including giving man the intellect to discover the sciences, then science and religion must agree or else one is in error. If each 'day' of creation in the Bible is viewed as a geological Age/Eon, there is NO conflict (with the exception of the sun, which appeared before the planet Earth).
Answer 3:The clash between the two has more to do with ideologies than with science or religion per se. Science is a convenient backdrop for the clash/debate. Proponents of ID (Intelligent Design) have an agenda (The Wedge Strategy) to bring God into prominence, particularly in the US, throughout the fields of education, research and politics. This is publicly and widely known. The ID spokespeople are engaged in a campaign to bring what they see as various shortcomings and inadequacies in evolutionary biology and cosmology before the public forum for exposure and debate. They are introducing concepts like 'irreducible complexity' in an attempt to prove to the generalpublic that design (and ultimately God) is responsible for all of creation and most importantly life. [This is a crude example of IC, and may not be currently held as such by ID proponents: Consider the eyeball and the specialized area of the brain needed to turn optical signals into vision. ID proponents might argue that the eye and the specialized brain area are different organs; how could one evolve without the other already existing? The conclusion of ID: this is an absolute, unchallengeable example of intelligent design, because all the structures needed to mediate vision comprise a system which is irreducibly complex.] The ID specialists are also attempting to develop a mathematical model, presented by Dembski (its inventor) as an explanatory filter, incapable of generating false negatives (see discussion) according to Dembski, for the detection of design that cannot have come about by natural means. These ideas are shown to be deeply flawed by professional statisticians, mathematicians, logicians and scientists in their published critiques.More importantly, after 10 or 15 years there is no substantial history of professional research papers, peer reviewed, backing up any of their claims. There are many popular books that are successfully enticing the uninformed public into questioning a lot of science that requires more than a layman's grasp to understand. Yet these scientists continue to stir the public, more to gain political advantage rather than to advance science.
Writing books that claim to contain the author's laws of intelligent design, and that these laws should be considered by the scientific community as equal to the laws of thermodynamics, takes more than a little ego. Professional scientists would lose their careers for making such claims in the arena of actual replicatable research and professional peer review. But these materials are not written to or for professionals, and are not written in support of ID or Creationism as science. They are written to demolish current evolution-based theories in the minds of the public. Their conclusion is that if there are flaws in evolutionary theory, or biological theory in general, then the only alternative is creation by God. This is a serious logical fallacy. There are issues and problems in every single intellectual endeavor, including science. New understanding comes to light as a result of research-- that is what science is; that is how it operates.
The clash comes by way of ideology, and the essential desire of The Wedge to dominate public policy.
How did a single continent affect evolution?
The continents of the earth are constantly drifting, sometimes joining up against other land masses and forming supercontinents, and sometimes breaking up. Sometime before 250 million years ago, a single continent, now known as Pangea, incorporated all the major land masses of the earth.
Evolution results as living things respond to environmental changes, and one of the aspects of the environment was the super-continent of Pangea. Successful life forms could migrate throughout the entire land area of the world, dominating the less successful and sometimes driving them to extinction. When Pangea began to break up, each separate land mass held species that had evolved on Pangea but now began to evolve in isolation, eventually creating new classes of life forms distinct from those on the other land mass.
