Let's be honest, if you don't believe in evolution, you're in one of the three Abrahamic faiths. To place a work of fiction over the facts, is absurd. We are mammals, therefore, we are animals. Animals evolve. For example:
There was only one species of bear. During an immigration, half of the bears went up north. These bears slowly evolved into the modern day Polar Bears. The Polar Bears have webbed paws to help them swim, a trait that NO OTHER BEAR has. Why? They evolved to help them survive their surroundings. A point creationist like to throw around is, "If we evolved from monkeys, there would be no monkeys left!"
Then please, creationists, explain to me why there are several species of bear other than the Polar Bear.
If you look at human behavior, from compassion and social altruism on one hand to brutality and bigotry on the other, it is, as the late Christopher Hitchens was known to point out, precisely what one can expect from a somewhat evolved species of primate. We are 1 chromosome removed from chimpanzees, and it shows.
The evidence against the divine creation argument is massive, as is the evidence for Evolution.
The probability of Abiogenesis starting the very first celled organisms is far greater than that of a divine designer of which there is absolutely no evidence for.
The Creation argument loses in both realms, Evidence and Probability.
All the peer reviewed evidence says evolution is true. Whether 9% or 99% believe in evolution is irrelevant, the truth is not a democracy. There is no peer reviewed evidence that shows evolution is false. There is a mountain of peer reviewed evidence that shows evolution is true. To deny evolution is like denying that the Earth orbits the Sun.
If I were to compare the two concepts with jigsaw puzzles. This is what I would have.
Evolution: The box would have a fairly clear but slightly morbid picture. When the pieces are placed, we find many pieces missing but there is more than enough to complete a visible picture.
Creationism: The box would have a wonderful picture that makes everyone happy even though the picture is a bit fuzzy causing others to see it slightly different. The big problem is there are no puzzle pieces in the box what so ever.
Original work never has leftovers from another. Created beings would never have vestigial organs, yet humans do and it is known for a fact that vestigial organs are a result of evolution. Thus humans are a product of evolution. All other life forms are the result of evolution, why would humans be so special as to be exempt?
I do not believe people were divinely created even though there is always a possibility that it is possible until proven otherwise. I do believe in the theory of Evolution more than creationism because it has more facts, evidence and proof. Evolution itself, is not a theory. We have many animals naturally evolving before our eyes; elephants are stopping themselves from growing tusks and Hudson river fish are making themselves immune to toxic waste. Also have Darwin's finches that are evolving right before your eyes. So by that we know it's possible that we could be off-springs of the process of evolution. There are many links of humanoids that resemble humans and have the similar DNA with. Homoretcus is one example of a transitional fossil of humanity's evolution. The reason it's a theory is because we haven't found the "missing link" that examples the giant jump that people made. Nearly animals have evolved and it's proven that humans have evolved physically but without or with a divine creator is unknown. Some people believe that people evolved from micro-organisms and then mutlicellular organisms then slowly becoming like us and it's simply a matter of time. Some think that aliens helped humanity by giving us a push in evolution. Some believe that a deity did it all. I believe evolution more than creationism.
Hmm, maybe the reason so few chose yes compared to how many should have chosen yes is because the person who asked the original question did not specify which answer was yes and no. I suppose it is implied but I am hoping some people just got confused because there are way too many people saying evolution isn't true. As far as evidence goes, evolution is a fact. Ugh, just reading the opposing arguments I don't know whether to cry from sadness or laugh from the absurdity. Most people's alternative argument is religion. I am perfectly okay with someone looking at the facts and saying they believe in god because technically it can't be disproven, but when people are this ignorant about evolution, it makes me more and more convinced that religion is a poison.
What is it about the three major religions that they call God all powerful but refuse to believe he is capable of creating us via evolution and then using a metaphor we could understand (six days)? If there was a God, I think he'd be pretty upset that you call him all powerful and all knowing to his face and secretly believe he can't accomplish the things he's said via scientifically recognizable means.
Just like any other theory, evolution has its assumptions. The assumptions are listed below (I don't think that anyone would refute these assumptions):
1. Characteristics are often genetically inherited
2. Your genetics are likely to be similar of that of you parents
3. Animals which have superior genetics are more likely to survive, mate and pass on their genes
If these three assumptions are true, then evolution is simply a deductive argument:
The animal that has better genes is more likely to survive. Thus he is more likely to mate. Thus he is more likely to pass on his genes. Thus the next animal of that specie is has a higher percentage of having better genes than it would have previously had. This process continues on and on, and explains why we are so well adapted for our environment.
Conversely, you can look at it the other way. The animal with inferior genes is less likely to survive. Thus he is less likely to mate. Thus he is less likely to pass on his genes. Thus the next animal of that specie is has a lower percentage of having those same genetic traits (the inferior ones) than it would have previously had.
Thus - survival of the fittest
There are so many ways to disproove evolution.
They say birds came from dinosaurs why would dinosaurs evolve tiny wings at their back to survive. And it gets more ridiculous they say the little wings on some dinosaurs eventually y turned into hands after "millions of years" this is plain silly. Why would a creature evolve a completely useless wing which has no real body function.
Secondly they found remains of "human ancestors". Please do some research those are extinct monkey species. One didn't transition into another. Just because I found a bike a scooter and a motor cycle underground this doesn't mean one changed into another.
They are three different things entirely
Thirdly the big band is impossible. They claim all matter and energy erupted from nothing forming galaxies, stars, and life. Hmm..... They do have a lot of faith after all.
There's still so much I have to say
This is so dumb please work on a better theory guys that science would at least support thank you.
And don't even start telling me stuff about carbon dating and all those other false dating system based on circular reasoning. Carbon dating has been proven many times as innacurate and unreliable in dating materials.
For the social behavior, it can also be quite easily explained by Christianity; compassion and social altruism are good deeds, and it's what God wants us to follow. However, brutality and cruelty are from our own free will, caused by our fallen state. Also, in response to the fossil record, I could easily point to the Cambrian Explosion, the rapid appearance of most major phyla. Also, the DNA evidence is not that surprising, considering how similar we look to apes, and the fact that we also share 90% of our DNA with cats, and 50% of it with bananas. However, the most condemning piece of evidence, and my personal favorite, is the Law of Biogenesis, stating the life can ONLY come from life. How, then, did life start?
Evolution does not undermine the notion of creation anymore than a manufacturing plant would undermine the humans responsible for designing and producing that product.
Humans likely came from monkeys. But what sets them apart from monkeys and the rest of the animal kingdom is the soul.
The soul is that spiritual part of us that makes us human.
Christians should stop wasting time on this debate.
This answer is for both sides of the column.
How does evolution account for the origin of life? It doesn't. It only accounts for the transition of one species to another, which is by the way, filled with holes. The cell, the most basic building block of life, is extremely complex. Amino acid tests have been performed by scientists and they have failed to produce life. Also, is it reasonable to conclude that atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and others could possibly give us the ability to perceive the world around us? What does evolution say about human morality, rationality, and conscience? Moreover, humans are quite unique in their ability to speak multiple languages, while cats can not utter a single sentence. Although I do believe in microevolution, since there is evidence for that, I believe it makes a lot more sense for us to be created.
Humins were created by god! We did not elbowed from apes! If we elvolved were would all the apes be or the monkey we evolved from?! Did god or genus evolve from an ape come on! How are people so blind?! It never says it in the Bible either, I don't understand how people got that idea!
Science has always supported the bible. Evolution is not a science, has anyone scientifically observed a species evolve, nope. Are there any missing links, nope. Sure god is not able to be observed either, but why are so many willing to dismiss God as a possibility. There are scientific theories many times more unreasonable than even polytheism. Such as the parrallel universe theory, which virtually has NO proof.
Do simmilar bone structures between species suggest they have the same ancestor, or the same designer?
If energy can not be created nor destroyed according to scientist then how did the Big Bang happen?
"Elephants are evolving because they are starting to be born without tusks." No, the phenotype for elephant tusks is just more rare because many of the ones that do have tusks are killed and don't get to pass down the gene for tusks. And even if evolution were true how would they evolve if they already died?
"If god is real then why is the world so imperfect?" That's easy, when Adam & Eve disobeyed God they had commited a sin, which results in death and imperfection. Seriously this is in the first few chapters of the Bible.
"Where did God come from, what did he just created himself." No, God has always existed and always will, even time does not have authority over him. Anyway don't many scientist say the Big Bang created itself, sheesh talk about hypocritical.
I could go on but you get my point No one should be forced into believing something. But some of those atheist need to show respect to people who believe God and the Bible
Evolutions is complete stupidity. There is absolutely not evidence supporting the theory and it defies actual laws of science. There is evidence of evolution in science as in species adapting to changes around them, but absolutely no evidence of vertical evoltuion, as in all species evolved from one species. Look at the world around you! Look at the complication of a single leaf from a single species of tree in the world- the possibilities of even that evolving are so improbabale we shouldn't even be talking about it. Evoltuion defies a law of physics that Einstein came up with, called the law of thermodynamics, that basically states that the universe left to itself is winding down or losing energy. The theory of evoltion states that the universe is gaining energy. Charles Darwin himself admitted that evoltuion is “the vain babbling a of a young man” and died a creationalist. Evolutions should not even be a factor in the argument about creationalism.
There is no proof that evolution (the theory that we all descend from a common ancestor) exists. Before I state why I disagree, I would like to clarify that I am agnostic and not religious. Back to the argument:
The problem with evolution is that the links (fossils that connect species with new species) are missing in the fossil record. Even Richard Dawkins admits that:
“We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolution history” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229).
- Prof. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University,"
The fact that there are links missing is very troubling for evolutionists because it does not confirm exactly as the tree of life predicts. It is funny how we are taught that we gradually evolved from apes when all the evidence presented are just fishes turning to fishes, horses turning to horses, etc. There are fossils like Tiktaalik that are claimed to be links; however, the conclusion is ambiguous and subjective at best.
On the other hand, the concept that a horse can genetically involve into a modified version of a new horse is quite evident in the fossil record. This is actually microevolution (genetic changes within the inheritance spectrum). These are caused by natural selection, mutation, etc. There is no doubt, even among creationists, that microevolution exists.
If one were to assume that species can macroevolve (genetic changes outside the group spectrum) into an entirely new species (e.G. Fish to mammal), then the genetic coding system would need new (not changed nor damaged) genetic information.
Many proponents of evolution like to point that natural selection and mutation make up the new genetic information; however, what they fail to realize is that natural selection nor mutation add new genetic code, but rather, change or damage it. If macroevolution (fish to mammal) is real, why do all the species from the Cambrian to modern look similar and not different?
Darwinian/Macro Evolution predicts that we should be able to find gradual and many, many modifications of primitive animals for every changes.
Yet, there aren't any for some reason.
This opinion question assumes that the two can't coexist. I see no reason why they cannot. The theory of evolution has numerous examples of scientific evidence in it's favor, and the existence of a divine cannot be proven at all. This however does not disprove a creator. Perhaps we will find evidence of a divine being one day, though I find it unlikely. To me, a creator as the instigator of life and evolution makes much more sense than random chance bringing about a perfectly habitable planet and then filling it with life.
In the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, probably the Koran, and many other creation stories have many gaps. For all we know, God created evolution to figure out what God wanted out of humans. Also, a lot of stories can't be taken literally, but teach us important lessons like: the benefits of mortality, how difficult life can be, and kindness. Evolution and creationism stories are actually very close. They can both be true. :)