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 does Darwin's theory of evolution differ from what scientist believe today?
Darwin's theory of evolution as proposed in "On the Origin of Species" does not differ from what scientists have discovered. The ongoing work still proves the theory today.
Bearing in mind that Darwin, and all others, did not know anything about genetics at the time he was writing, it is remarkable that he was able to propose the theory along with Alfred Russel Wallace at the time.
How does Charles Darwin's Theory of evolution differ from what scientists believe today?
Very little, considering that genes and DNA were completely unknown in those days.
The only serious difference between Darwin's Theory and what scientists know today was that Darwin made several logical jumps in terms of how traits were passed from parent to offspring and had no idea about the historical record of fossils. Incorporating genetics and fossils into the study of evolution has allowed scientists to clearly explain how x became y using records and analyses unavailable to Darwin at the time.
Why did people not believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin was active around the 1850s. This was a time that education was on the uprise, but it was not really commonplace. Many people were active in church, and that is where they learned most of their views about life and creation. The church was also very active in selecting the school's curriculum, for those that did receive some education. Without a broader understanding of the world around them, it was difficult for them to accept anything outside of their church teaching. Darwin's theories were rejected by many on the basis of religious beliefs.
Through the years, education became more prevalent, and many church goers were able to reconcile some science with some of their beliefs. The ideals of religion and the theories of evolution have both developed through the years. Some of Darwin's ideas have been rejected by evolutionists, whereas some others have been accepted by creationists. Although not all of his theories stood the test of time, he was a pioneer in his field, and he started many scientist thinking about new and different possibilities.
Very slowly. Each generation has some differences from the preceding generations. The survivors from one generation pass their genes on to subsequent ones. A trait that increases survival rate is passed on more frequently than a trait which is detrimental to procreation.
What was the energy source for the creation of the earth?
There are two answers for this question and both are theoretical. The first answer comes from religious dogma and is simply: God. This answer is infinitely more simple to give for the question, if not prove. Nearly every known religion on Earth accounts for the creation of Earth in the same way as it is written in the first verse of the Christian bible, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
The second answer to this question comes from scientific approach and has undergone an immeasurable amount of hypothesis, research, testing, and critical scrutiny over the years. Science tells us that, in the beginning, there was only a single super-massive gaseous point in our empty universe. Instantaneously and randomly, the gravitational bond holding this massive body together exploded and super-heated particles were projected outward through space, in a reaction called the "Big Bang". In less than one millionth of a second, protons, neutrons, electrons, and their anti-particles began to form as they traveled outward. As time passed, atoms were formed. These early atoms were joined together through gravitational force. The gravitational force of these early formations was so great that they collapsed in on themselves, and as hydrogen atoms bonded with one another, stars were formed through the reaction of fusion. Over millions of years, the fusion process completed its cycle for these early stars and they exploded, throwing out massive atoms into the universe. Over time, these atoms collected and combined to create planets, smaller stars, asteroids, and numerous other solid bodies.
As stars began to form in our galaxy, one appeared where our Sun now takes residence. After this first star burned through its usable hydrogen and other elements, it exploded, sending matter outward in all directions. Through gravitational forces, this matter cooled and collected in a few key locations, forming the planets in our solar system and the asteroid belt. While all of this was taking place, a smaller star began to form in the same location of the previous explosion and our Sun was born, starting its own fusion process.
The Earth was one of the planets formed from the collapse of the first star and it has taken billions of years to become the ideal home for life as we know it to be today.
How does scientists use genetics to understand evolution?
Scientists use genetics to understand evolution by studying the changes in DNA sequences over time in different species. By comparing genetic similarities and differences between species, researchers can infer evolutionary relationships and timelines. This information helps scientists to reconstruct the history of life on Earth and understand how populations change and evolve.
How would you use evolution in a sentence?
The process of things changing gradually over time is known as evolution.
Why is creationism so controversial?
The purpose of creationism is to create controversy. In fact, without controversy, creationism would cease to exist.
Creationism evolved as a group of related, but sometimes highly inconsistent concepts that its proponents hoped would be taught in schools alongside science, and thereby bolster literal belief in the biblical creation stories. The concern was that, as the Theory of Evolution became more and more widely accepted, not only in the scientific community, but in general society, people would begin to see the biblical creation stories as allegories rather than as history. And the fear was that if people no longer believed the biblical creation stories, they would cease to be Christians.
Major denominations say that creationism is not central to Christian faith, and scientists say that creationism is not scientifically valid. So, creationism needs controversy in order to be noticed.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What are some of the main points of Darwin's thoery of evolution?
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as published in his book On the Origin of Species states that all organisms on earth develop through the process of natural selection. Small variations from one generation to the next increase an individual's ability to compete for resource, mates, and general survival.
What is the creation of a new species called?
The creation of a new species is called speciation. This process occurs when populations of a species become reproductively isolated and diverge over time, leading to the formation of distinct species.
With special creation, we should find species distributed in an effectively random geographic manner, with closely related species no more likely to be located close to each other than not, but merely existing where climate and other environmental factors favoured their survival. It would make as much if not more sense for them to exist wherever an environment could support them, as opposed to being distributed according to their apparent relationship to other life forms. The fact that this is not the case contradicts the claims of creationists.
Comparative anatomy
One of the strongest forms of evidence against special creation is comparative anatomy. Organisms with similar anatomical features are assumed to be relatively closely related evolutionarily, and they are assumed to share a common ancestor. Common ancestry is a paradox if species have remained unchanged since the time of creation.
Some organisms have homologous anatomical structures that are very similar in embryological development and form, but very different in function. A good example of homologous structures is the forelimb of mammals. When examined closely, the forelimbs of humans, whales, dogs, and bats are all very similar in structure - each possesses the same number of bones, arranged in almost the same way. By comparing the anatomy of these organisms, scientists have determined that they share a common evolutionary ancestor and in an evolutionary sense, they are relatively closely related. Their dramatic differences in function is clear evidence of adaptation through continuing evolution, not of special creation.
Other organisms have analogous anatomical structures that function in very similar ways, but are morphologically and developmentally very different. For example, the wings of birds and dragonflies both serve the same function, but the anatomy of the wings are very different. Since these structures are so different, even though they have the same function, they do not indicate an evolutionary relationship nor that two species share a common ancestor.
Why is microevolution claimed by creationists and evolutionary scientists?
Microevolution is evolution that has taken place within a species to such a limited extent that the result is not yet an entirely new species.
Many creationists are willing to accept the reality of microevolution because, even in large mammals, the timeframe for microevolution is so short that we can readily see that it has occurred. To a creationist, there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, where evolution has already continued until the change is so apparent that a new species must be defined. If they accept the fact of macroevolution, then they must accept the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth.
Of course, scientists, or if one prefers 'evolutionists', accept that microevolution is the first step on the path to macroevolution, and they accept that this is explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Not all instances of microevolution continue on to macroevolution and the creation of new species. In some cases, a limited adaptation is all that is necessary for the species to survive in an altered environment. In other cases, the adaptation is to slow or too late, and the species becomes extinct before it can adapt.
AnswerBoth accept that there are changes within species because they are easily observed. Creationists, while acknowledging it is not evolution, see adaptations within a group which do not lead to any new genetic material and do not in any way discredit the creation of kinds by God. They accept it because of the clear scientific evidence that changes within species occur while those involving the addition of new genetic material needed for 'macroevolution' have not been proven despite the claims of some.
Which scientist is most often associated with the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin is most often associated with the theory of evolution. His work on natural selection, as outlined in his book "On the Origin of Species," revolutionized our understanding of how species change over time.
How is the evolution theory only limited as a theory?
The word 'theory' means it is an explanatory framework for some set of observational data. As to your question: while there is an overwhelming amount of observational data supporting the general tenets of evolutionary theory, and it is now impossible to rationally reject these tenets, it will technically always remain an explanatory model - a theory.
What do creationists say are some of the main problems with the theory of evolution?
Here are some arguments 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). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).
- 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.
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.
See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy
And: Evidence of a young Earth
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. The only way around this is to assume that helium is escaping into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving at above the escape velocity, of 24,200 miles per hour. The usual speed of helium atoms is only 5,630 mph. A few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the atmosphere.
This is an unsolved problem, concerning which the atmospheric physicist C.G. Walker stated: "There appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere." Another scientist, J.W. Chamberlain, said that this helium accumulation problem "… will not go away, and it is unsolved."
Also see:
God's wisdom seen in His creations
A naturalist who proposed the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin, an English naturalist, proposed the theory of evolution through his book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Darwin's theory suggested that species evolve over time through the process of natural selection, where those with advantageous traits survive and reproduce. His work revolutionized the field of biology and our understanding of the diversity of life on Earth.
Darwins' Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says that species either adapt and evolve via an accumulation of sequential minor variations, or become extinct.
The Gaia hypothesis says that the planet's biomass self-regulates the conditions on the planet to make its physical environment (in particular temperature and chemistry of the atmosphere) on the planet consistently hospitable to the species which constitute its 'life'. For example, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, the biomass of photosynthetic organisms increases and thus removes more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Gaia has attracted considerable debate and should, at this stage, be considered a hypothesis rather than a proven theory.
The two concepts are parallel in that they explain the ability of an 'organism' to adapt to the changing environment. However, one is concerned with biological processes, while the other is concerned with macro-physics. They neither contradict nor support each other.
Gregor Mendel's experiment with pea plants was one of the first genetic experiments. Genetics play a very important role in evolution, for if there were not genes, nothing would evolve. Since things evolve by selection (or what genes get 'selected' to be passed down to the next gereration), Gregor polinated one plant with another plant of the same species with different features, and he got a plant that had similar features to the previous plants. Thus, he speculated that traits from parent plants would be expressed in their offspring because of genes.
Who developed the theroy of evolution?
Charles Darwin is widely credited with developing the theory of evolution through natural selection. His landmark book, "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859, presented evidence for how species change over time through a process of adaptation to their environment.
What is it called if you believe in a higher power but also believe in evolution?
It is called being religious (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc according to which higher power you believe in) while, at the same time, accepting the facts of science. Many Christians, for example, do just that - believe in evolution.
For more information about religion and evolution, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Which scientist was the creationist of organic evolution?
This is an interesting question. I think I know the answer to this: Carl Linnaeus. He was the first scientist to realize that he could not establlish any system of biological classification that did not include humans in the taxon of apes.
Opinions about creation of human beings?
Human beings are the present result of a long history of evolutionary changes stretching back into the past for millions of years. The first representative in that long history of change that can be regarded as people not just another species of ape, would probably be Australopithecines about 2 million years ago. These developed into homo sapiens (the thinking man) some 400,000 to 250,000 years ago, probably in Africa. From Africa we spread throughout the world. The whole process was driven by the evolutionary processes as described by Charles Darwin in his "Origin of Species."
What is your reaction in the evolution of life?
The evolution of life is a fascinating and complex process that highlights the incredible diversity and adaptability of living organisms. It showcases how species have changed and diversified to survive and thrive in various environments over millions of years. Studying evolution provides valuable insights into the interconnectedness of all life on Earth.
What is the significance of evolution?
The significance of the process of evolution is that it led to life as we know it. Wheter or not we believe that evolution was guided by God or some other deity, without evolution there would only be the simple organisms that first developed on Earth over a billion years ago.
Scientific explanation for the creation of the earth?
At present there is no acceptable theory as to how the earth was formed. The main band wagon at present is The Big Bang theory. However this theory is so full of holes that the scientists have set it aside to try and come up with something else. So I suggest that we turn to a higher power which has always existed, that is the power of a God who organized matter to come together and form the earth. This next suggestion will have the skeptics flapping around all over the place.
Because all matter has intelligence, and a God would certainly have more intelligence than matter, then that of a lower intelligence would have to obey that of a higher intelligence. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the lesser intelligence obeyed the higher to come together to form itself into an earth.
