Amazon.com Widgets

Which do you think is correct: evolution (yes) or creationism (no)?

  • Evolution is everywhere.

    Lets face it, evolution is evidenced for almost all other species on the planet in some way or another. Be it the bones of our ancestors or the continuous observation of creatures/insects for example the mosquito. They became resistant to man made medicines through evolution of its prior self to extend its survival ism within the world. We are all made from bacteria, this much i believe.

  • Evolution is always correct

    For some reason this issue is very controversial. Out of all the people that go to college in this country, it is hard to believe that nearly half the country still does not think that the human race evolved. I really do not understand why so many people go to college if they are not going to believe what they are taught. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. All you have to do is study bacteria to see it.

  • Evolution is the only answer that makes sense.

    While the church may continue to hold the opinion of creationism, evolution can be seen in all species of animals and plants. Scientific study supports evolution and the results show many species that change to fit the current circumstances of their environment. Clinging to creationism to explain our species is outdated and will be proven incorrect.

  • Facts & Evidence

    I believe evolution is "more" correct than the creationism theory. I find it sad that some people are only exposed to creationism, especially if they attended public schools in the United States. Evolution is a more sound theory with more scientific proof than creationism will ever be able to gather.

  • I don't know.

    I believe in evolution. I think it's because I'm not from a religious family, so the only theory that I've looked at in detail IS evolution. I mean, you study it in biology! What else can I believe in? Although, I don't see the evidence to support it. Tectonic plates? I get that. But evolution? No one was around to see it; we don't know just what happened. So, although I personally think it's correct, I don't see how creationism is any less sound than evolution, except for the fact that science made it seem like so.

  • God made me.

    I think that creationism is more correct than evolution, because God told us how he made the world. God said that in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth. He said that he made the animals, and then that he made the people. God did not leave room for debate.

  • I am a creationist. I believe in the Bible. I am saying that evolution is incorrect. Part 1

    Evolution starts with one single celled organism. The theory is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (correct me if their is another theory because I am not sure) This single celled organism reproduced (probably asexually) many times and over much time evolved into multi celled organisms. These organisms became more diverse as they were exposed to different environments and different situations. These eventually brought us to today where we have multiple diverse ecosystems. The evidence evolutionists provide are fossils, carbon dating, and sediment layers in the earths surface due to gradual aging of the earth.

    My first point is that carbon dating is inconsistent. I have read multiple articles that state a certain rock or fossil is some millions of years old after one carbon dating. I have also read multiple articles where after a couple of years the carbon date shifts drastically from the previously stated age of origin. Also carbon-16 and carbon-17 measures have been taken apart from the standard carbon-14 all with different result. So carbon dating is not reliable.

    My second point is with the first organism. The theory I have heard is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (again correct me if their is another theory) This is a 1 to about 1 million chance of this even happening ever in nature. This has been done in a lab, however. Scientists came together with the right mixture of chemicals and created a living single celled organism. Am I defeating my point? No. The simple fact that this could ONLY be done in a laboratory environment further proves my point. Not only that, but also that fact that this organism would need food and a way to find it or consume it. This organism would need to survive on it's own in a place that was before uninhabited. The chances are slim on top of the 1 to a 1 million chance of life coming from nothing.

    My third point is the fossils. Fossils can be found literally anywhere on the earth. This is not supposed to be the case. For example, fossils have been found on the top of mountains. Not only just fossils but tylosaurs and other sea creatures. These fossils should be at the bottom of the ocean not on the top of mountains. Fossils have also been found passing through many layers of sediment. This should not be the case because supposedly over millions of years these layers should have been formed instead of fossils passing through multiple layers.

    My fourth point is surrounding the here and now. If the evolutionist claim is true, then there would currently be missing links all around us. What I mean by this is that there would be half breads walking around. For example a man with an abnormally larger jaw, longer arms, hunched over, and other apelike creatures. We do not have those here on planet earth.

  • Is evolution everywhere?

    Let's face it evolution is the change of kind via the means of natural selection as Charles Darwin called it. Macro-evolution (change in kind) is different to micro-evolution. Adaptation has nothing to do with change in kind because new genetic information must be added but in resistance to things information is lost.


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