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
What are the two kinds of Creationism?
The two main kinds of Creationism are young Earth Creationism, which believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and asserts that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and old Earth Creationism, which accepts scientific evidence for the age of the Earth but still believes in a divine creator.
What are the old earth creationism theories?
OEC is an umbrella term for various ideas on the Creation. These include the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism. Suggest you look it up via the phrase 'old earth creationism' as it it too long to summarize here.
Who are the people responsible for the creation of the evolution theory?
Charles Darwin rejected the Scriptures (Bible) and came up with evolution.
Pierre-Louis Moreau believed that the Earth was flat.
Maupertuis believed we got here by "lucky chance".
These are some of the many that believe on evolution. (Hopefully you aren't one of them.)
Who created the scientific theory of origin of life?
The only scientific consensus on "the origin of life" is that it arose of organic molecules. Charles Darwin is often cited for this theory but his theory of evolution only dealt with the changes within existing organisms.
There isn't really a single scientist one can name and give credit to for abiogenesis.
Why doesn't inbreeding depression by itself cause evolution?
Inbreeding depression does not cause evolution because it reduces genetic variability within a population without introducing new genetic traits or variations. Evolution typically occurs through the introduction of new genetic variations, which can be selected for or against in a population over time. Inbreeding depression may increase the likelihood of certain traits being expressed due to the elevated prevalence of harmful recessive alleles, but it is not a mechanism for generating new traits or adaptations required for evolution.
Can evolution and creationism be reconciled?
Another answer from our community:What is to be reconciled, evolution is a theory of man; creation is from God. They can not be reconciled nor ever will be because man does not think like God, nor can God lower himself to his own creation. To say that creation and evolution is reconcilable is erroneous because there is no proof that evolution takes place, because if one were to believe in the "big bang theory" where did the matter from the "big bang" come from? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Another answer:
Evolution is a theoretical construct based on collected evidence, like the Theory of Gravity or Copernican Theory.
Creation is a myth based on a literal reading of sacred books like Enuma Elish, Rg Veda, Hesiod's Cosmogony or the Bible. In all four of these, the creation story is told in a series of poems and therefore must of necessity include symbolic language, mataphore and poetic imagery.
Answer
The average person, and especially people who believe in a god or gods, do not understand the word theory as it is used by scientists. Most people think that the word theory means a guess or a hunch, which is how the word is usually meant in everyday non-scientific usage. In science, however, the word theory is used of phenomena that has been tested over and over with experimentation and observation that produces the same results every time the experiments and tests are repeated. In science a theory is not just a hunch or hypothesis under these conditions, but is recognized as established fact, unless and until some other facts are brought to light that force scientists to revise or update the theories in question. Gravity is a fact even though it is called the theory of gravitation. The theoretical part of the theory of gravitation is that no one knows exactly what gravity is or just exactly how it works, but gravity itself is an established fact. In the same way evolution is an established fact. The theoretical part of evolution is by what mechanism it occurs, but evolution itself is an established fact, and it is incompatible and irreconcilable with either creationism or intelligent design.
.
In creationism it is generally accepted that all life as it exists now was specially created that way by a god or gods, and that since the creation no change in lifeforms has occurred. In intelligent design it is widely accepted that evolution does occur but that it is God-directed. Both stands are incompatible with the theory of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that life evolved, and there are also a vast number of examples in nature of unintelligent design. Scientists are always revising or updating all of their findings when enough new evidence comes to light that indicates their theories are in error. That's how science works, it is self-correcting, and that's what makes science the best way we have of getting to the truth. Very few people who believe in a god or gods are willing to change their minds when new evidence comes to light. They would rather hold on to illogical beliefs, or beliefs that contradict their holy books than to find the real truth of life and the universe.
Another Answer:
For me this question is similar to one I heard many times in Political Science classes, "Will the Soviet Union ever tear down the Berlin Wall and allow its satellites and itself to enter the democratic world." Most all at that time would answer with an emphatic no. Just like today and this question of reconciliation between two dynamically diverse views on how we came to be here: creation or evolution.
But I have much hope as the fields of science are discovering more and more each day. DNA probably holds the final answer for all of us but the other sciences are proving Genesis and other biblical books more and more accurate with each new discovery. But that being said, in our modern society we see numerous religious people signing onto movements ascribing beliefs in both evolution and creation (see Clergy Letter Project in USA of 10,000 ordained priests and ministers). Or in Australia, a well known molecular biologist and medical doctor, Michael Denton, an avowed Agnostic, in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 77), evolutionary theory "is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe"
So the short answer is, only time will tell.
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.
