Why do people say evolution makes more sense than creation?
442538
Because there is plenty of proven scientific evidence to back it up as opposed to ID which has faith and a book, nothing more.
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
770975
Well, since both reincarnation and creation are religious beliefs, while evolution is a scientific theory, it's comparing apples to oranges. They are in whole different realms.\n\nI'd like to point out that the poster above me (Paganfire) is mistaken. Her explanation of evolution is actually that of thermodynamics. Biological evolution is descent with modification. Many people lump all the theories of science together as one 'belief', but they are not beliefs, as they are built on evidence.
1072303
I believe in creation because 1) I believe God created everything and everyone for a purpose, and 2) evolution is farfetched and i would never want to believe that particals "banged" together and created earth, to only "evolve" in to what we are today.  Being a decendant of a monkey is not someting i would easily believe.
145948
Of course Evolution makes NO sense. Let me ask you, Are u a believer in Macro evolution or lets say Micro evolution. You evolutionists are ALWAYS chaniging the story. Evolutionist: The earth beith 6 Billion years old. \nOther evolutionist: No no idiot the earth is 600 billion years old. (Btw the earth is closer to 6000 years old ;)\n\nPoint proven thanx for reading.
636760
because most people see it as either an attack on god or as an attack on science. there are however a few of us who believe that the theory of god and the theory of evolution can coexist. i try to keep an open mind about things that are not yet proven or unproven to be true.
1167804
One of the dangers of evolution is that it makes *TOO* MUCH SENSE.  It is actually incredibly simple and logical!  It makes so much sense WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND IT, that it's tempting to believe it on logical grounds alone, and forget that a good theory not only has to make sense, but it has to have *evidence* to support it.\n\nBut guess what? The evidence is there too! Tons of evidence.  Fossil evidence, genetic evidence, molecular evidence, comparative anatomy, vestigial and homologous structures, geographic distribution of species, etc. etc., all supporting the same idea.\n\nBut purely with respect to the how simple it is:\n\nNatural selection requires three ingredients:\n1. Variation. (E.g. some individuals within a species are hairier/taller/lighter/whatever than others individuals).\n2. Selection. (Hairier individuals do better and make more babies in one environment, or lighter individuals do better and make more babies in another environment).\n3.  Time.  (As in *gobs* of it, millions, billions of generations.)\n\nThat's it.  People who focus on probabilities, or say the evolution is about randomness or blind "luck" think it's all about #1.  Randomness only comes into play as a source of variation.  There's nothing random about the idea that hairier animals live longer and make more babies in colder environments.\n\nAnd there's nothing in there that says that if some members of a species evolve into a new species, that *all* members must evolve (i.e. that the former species must disappear).  E.g., the hairier individuals may explore colder environments and eventually become a new species, while the former species (less hairy) thrives quite happily in the warmer environment.  \n\nAnd the "half-evolved organ" argument is also silly ... e.g. half-a-wing with crappy feathers *is* useful even if the proto-bird can't yet fly ... if intermediate feathers keep it warm, and intermediate wings let it flap out of danger better (think of a chicken), then that's enough selective advantage that it will live longer and make more babies than its buddies with smaller wings or crappier feathers.  Intermediate stages can invariably be shown to be useful.\n\nThat's it.  It's a *really* simple idea.  Hope it's no longer Greek to you.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.
1023959
I think most people who believe in Christianity also understand that science has a part in the process as well. Thus, while God may have created the Earth and all, there is still a process of evolution that occurs.
355107
Well, there IS a good explanation. The story about creation is a way how simple people explained stuff to themselves. \nYou see, if you read the creation theory, you'll see the things appeared in the similar order than they actually did. \nAt first, there was "light", which of course means the glowing mass of gasses and molten metals in the emptiness of space. When it cooled down and the water condensed, they became earth and water. \nLater on, then plants appeared, after them the animals and as the last one, humans, which are only about thirty thousand years old. \n\nIf you try to represent this to simple people, as the peoples of near east 2000 years ago no doubt were, you'll have trouble making them understand what 65 million years is and how come a dinosaur would evolve from an one-cell creature. So you make up a god and tell them the story happened in 7 days and they go away happy with their own understanding of the process. \n\nIt's basically the same, just VERY simple. \n\nWhat I don't understand, however, is HOW the hell nowadays, in the era of computers and high technology, some EQUALLY simple people can exist. \nWell, for THEM, the theory of evolution CERTAINLY doesn't exist, their mentality remained at the same point of functioning as it was 2000 or even 5000 years ago, I'm afraid.
988848
Creation THROUGH Evolution.  Both are correct in their own ways.  Believing in one does not exclude the other.
1083318
As an "evolutionist" I side with science and logic that evolution is the method of speciation in organisms.\n\nMy personal opinion on why Creationists find fault with evolution is two-fold. First, a strict interpretation of the often-translated Bible. It is viewed as the ultimate authority and a "first-hand" account of what happened throughout history. \n\nThere are several problems with this, most importantly the translation of words from the original text, into English, which may change the true meaning of words, or more often their isn't a word in English that fits the original word. A good example of this is in Genesis, the main accounting of creation for theists. The word translated into "day" from the original text may have different meanings, it could literally mean a day, or it could mean periods of time. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this throughout the bible, but the problem is clear, logically, you cannot maintain a strict interpretation if your reading a interpretation. Also the first hand account isn't really a first hand account, many of the scriptures are oral traditions that were written down long after the events transpired, many were written a few hundred years after the people in the passed away. We've all played whisper-down-the-lane. \n\nSecondly, the scientific account of life, and it's origins (which isn't considered part of the Theory of Evolution by the way) doesn't mention, and doesn't require a god to exist for it to happen. Unable to separate scientific thought, from religious ones, some Creationists find evolution has to be incorrect because it makes no mention of a Creator. Really, ANY kind of science can never make mention of any kind of God, it is a fundamentally unprovable idea. Nevertheless, because of this, Evolution cannot and will not be accepted by many believers.\n\nPersonally, there is no reason that both ideas cannot be. While the account of Genesis cannot be true, if a God does exist he has created everything else through natural means, it would only make sense that he would do the same in creating life. The difference is, only one can be taught as a science, the other is philosophy.
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
1062580
"Evolution" is a discussion of the adaptation and development of species and sub-species in respect to their environments.  "Better," "worse," "advanced" and "primitive" actually are quite meaningless in this discussion.  Similarly, "race" has utterly no significance except as an expression of certain features of environmental adaptation.\n\nHowever, since this concept was first articulated by Charles Darwin in his book, "The Origin of Species," people have had terrible debates about its validity and meaning.  Oddly enough, a great many people who absolutely deny the validity of evolution, mainly religious people, have also been among those persons who adopted its terms in a distorted concept called "social Darwinism," which has been used to support and promote racism.\n\nMost people today who say evolutionary theory is racist are attempting to smear the concept rather than deal with it.  And some of these people are terrible religious bigots.
1030372
God created evolution.   Evolution is a form of creation.\nWhy does everyone think that God always said "poof" and it was there?  His example was the potter and the clay.   There is no time frame to God.  And man did not come from monkeys.  If that were so, why are there still monkeys and apes?  Why didn't THEY evolve?  Everything else evolved.   Man was created as man.   Ape man came from the perfect man in a regression form or de-evolution.   Most don't believe the bible because they haven't read it or just don't understand it.  If you think the Bible is fake, you are betting eternity on it.   Bottom line...you are human, monkeys are animals, not ancestors.
763971
Because they believe that Darwinian, human evolution is not true and/or it dilutes the faith of literal interpretationists.  According to creationists, when only Darwinian evolution is taught, then their children are confused.  In school, they hear that humans evolved over millions of years, from the tinist single celled organisms.  In church, they hear that God took clay and made one human, and then two, and then somehow other humans existed (that weren't part of the original story.)  Kids might be confused, or they might "wrongly" question the creationism story.\nThus, by showing "creationism" as an "alternative" to evolution, they can (a) reaffirm their religious beliefs as fact, even contrary to the scientific record and the scientific method, and (b) perhaps get other children to convert.  After all it's one more way of practicing decipleship -- "go ye therefore into all nations..." to reach new potential followers of Christ.