Amazon.com Widgets

Is the doctrine of creation more realistic than the theory of evolution?

  • Imma confuzzed man

    Evolution is way better. Well when I say evolution I assume you mean Abiogenesis as well as it is competing against creationism. Creationism is entirely unrealistic. Apart from the alleged events of the bible when has anything even vaguely like the bible stories ever happened? Never. Evolution we can see around us the evidence is everywhere I would say go out and look but that sounds like what a creationist would say so I go out and test.

  • Yaaas bois lool

    Y a a a aa a a a a a a aa a a a a aa a a aa a aa a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a s s s s s s s s s s

  • They attack different questions, but...

    Evolution has to do with diversity of life, and how it diversified from the beginning. Creation has to do with what happened beforehand, how everything came into being to begin with. This question begs the question of whether or not OP understands what evolution actually is.

    At the same time, creation is substantiated by arguments that beg more questions than they answer, engage in special pleading, and stem from a core of arguing from ignorance. Evolution is substantiated by reams and reams of evidence, including DNA, fossils, test scenarios in labs, as well as the apparent predictive value of the models themselves. In that sense, one is not supported by evidence, the other is. In that sense, evolution is far more realistic.

    Most people say 'it is so complex, it must have been created'. If complexity is a hallmark for creation, you would have an infinite regress of increasingly complex beings that, by this logic, would have to have been created themselves. Otherwise, you are simply imposing a requirement for one and not the other. Special pleading.

  • Absolutely Not !

    Creationism is based on a 4000 year old book of ancient Hebrew Mythology. Evolution is based on well-supported, peer-reviewed, scientific research. There is no comparison. Anyone who accepts an ancient fable over scientific evidence is only able to do so out of purposeful ignorance.
    I personally believe in theistic evolution.

  • Evolution is way better.

    Well when I say evolution I assume you mean Abiogenesis as well as it is competing against creationism. Creationism is entirely unrealistic. Apart from the alleged events of the bible when has anything even vaguely like the bible stories ever happened? Never. Evolution we can see around us the evidence is everywhere I would say go out and look but that sounds like what a creationist would say so I go out and test.

  • I think theory of evolution is more realistic than a doctrine of creation.

    Because there is no evidence that we could believe doctrine of creation, but theory of evolution has some evidence to prove it such as, human in old stone age can't make tools they just earn tools on the nature but at new stone age they started to make a fire with a flint also, they can use tools. It means humans are kept getting evolution. And at now people are using many technology to have a better life.
    Because of those reason I think theory of evolution is more realistic than a doctrine of creation.

  • They attack different questions, but...

    Evolution has to do with diversity of life, and how it diversified from the beginning. Creation has to do with what happened beforehand, how everything came into being to begin with. This question begs the question of whether or not OP understands what evolution actually is.

    At the same time, creation is substantiated by arguments that beg more questions than they answer, engage in special pleading, and stem from a core of arguing from ignorance. Evolution is substantiated by reams and reams of evidence, including DNA, fossils, test scenarios in labs, as well as the apparent predictive value of the models themselves. In that sense, one is not supported by evidence, the other is. In that sense, evolution is far more realistic.

    Most people say 'it is so complex, it must have been created'. If complexity is a hallmark for creation, you would have an infinite regress of increasingly complex beings that, by this logic, would have to have been created themselves. Otherwise, you are simply imposing a requirement for one and not the other. Special pleading.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.