Unfortunately, Creationists think much more than that God created life. They think it happened in a short time, and that all the species currently in existence were created, separately, at that time. Most scientists are happy with the idea that we can trace history back only a certain distance (though that is quite a long distance), and what came before that *might* have been a God who set up everything that followed. But that is unacceptable to Creationists, who insist that it was all done quite recently.

I've always thought of it this way since I was a kid. Based upon my observations, I can't see any other way as being reasonable. I can't fathom why there is even a debate in mainstream thought. In fact, I think it is the entire order of the Universe to evolve. I think that's the How, but Why will never be answered definitively.

I agree with Salient Alien. Something had to have created and then there is proof that we have evolved as time. You can't ignore the facts.

This is actually what I believed for a long time, until I studied more science and then realized that there is absolutely no proof of evolution. Why it is accepted as scientific truth by so many, when it is not, is a mystery to me. It makes me think that many people just enjoy knocking down any Christian beliefs.

The two theories are not mutually exclusive and the evidence for evolution is too strong to deny. I have yet to see any convincing evidence against creationism so logically if one theory is almost definitely true and the other might be, then it follows that it's possible for both to be correct, or at least equally incorrect.

yes

everyone keeps saying that we have to evolve and we did evolve and it's the way of the universe. but according to the second law of thermodynamics everything gets worse. and i see that much more prevalent than natural progress. the world is dying the universe is closing in on it's self we all die and no one's positive why. and also if evolution means "survival of the fittest" then humans would not exist. we are MUCH less capable of dealing with our surroundings than our supposed predecessors chimps monkeys etc... they are stronger, can use all four limbs eqully, have full body hair for warmth, don't deplete the world around them. humans are a virus. we go somewhere, deplete the natural resources, then move somewhere else. i don't see how any of that promotes evolution. additionally, why would God tell us in the bible that he did it one way and lie about it? he can't lie. so if you believe the evolution/creationism you don't believe in the bible and therefore don't believe in God. and islam, mormonism, and alot of others believe in "the same God" so you would have to be some othe religion that i don't know of. i'm not trying to sound angry because i'm not so if this seems angry sorry. just passionate. oh and please only comment useful things. not "you're dumb. i hate christians." domo!

Yes. I think creative energy is constantly at work creating new things every moment. It makes sense to me. I think we do have things evolving which you can observe. Look at antibiotic resistant infections. The viruses "evolve" so to speak, make themselves stronger to resist the administered antibiotic. Also, certain pests have gotten an immunity to pesticides and they have to find new ones. I personally think humans are changing.People look different than they did 100 years ago, albeit in small ways, and think differently.

no, He created it just how He wanted it to be.

I have always believed that! I am a spiritual person and believe that God created everything. He creatd it so perfectly that it is self sufficient in the sense that it does the work itself. I beleive that evolution was part of his plan.

It's possible. Evolution isn't compatible with a literal Biblical Creation belief though, as the Bible tells the story of God creating everything in 6 days in a finished state (kinda suggests they wouldn't evolve), Adam then named all of the animals (a meaningless thing to say if the animals around 'then' weren't around when the Bible was eventually written...), etc... There are too many inconsistencies between 'Literal Biblical Creation' and 'Evolution' for them to be compatible, but the idea of Creationism is very much compatible with the idea of Evolution.

Yes, most defiantly, keeping in mind that His day might be the equivalent to a million of our human days, good question!

Which God? What is the definition of "creationism" in this context? Most anything is possible.

Now you're thinking! I've been believing this for quite awhile now. Why CAN'T the two be married? I am amazed someone else besides me has thought of this. Thank you for at least voicing the possibility, whether you believe it or not.

Personally i'm with science on this one although this doesn't have to conflict with the church. The universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago and is proven. Some of the forefathers of astronomy were involved with the churc. Nicholas Capernicus was a deacon. Fact is space stars planets people plants animals everything are all made of the same stuff. The whole universe is expanding continually and changing due to the influences of it's surroundings so why shouldn't we....

All things are possible with God.

I'm a devout Catholic. I most definitely believe in GOD, and his creation. I think the story of the "seven days" in which HE created the world, IS a story of evolution that is taken way too literally by many major religions. I do believe in evolution.... Here's an example: I believe that when GOD created man and woman, he intended for them to be the perfect partners, which is the reason he created woman after seeing all his other creations were not a good match for man. I also believe that for a long time, homosexuality WAS a choice and a sin for those who gave in to that temptation. However, I believe that over time, evolution has accounted for the homosexual nature of many, and it HAS become a gene, where at first it wasn't. I also believe that this is nature's (GOD'S) way of keeping the human population down. I also believe that there are still people who are NOT born with the gene, that give into the temptation and for those, it IS still a sin, but for those HE allows born with the gene, I don't believe it is a sin. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Yes. This is what I suggested recently in answer to another question. I am happy beleiving in both.

That seems to be a very comfortable compromise, but is it accurate? Yes, we could assumed that God set life in motion and then just let natural selection run its course--a form of Deism. However, whether God's involvement was direct or indirect, evolutionary theory raises another difficulty--a new variant of the age-old problem of "evil". It should be remember that although the domains of religion and science overlap less today, this is partly because evolutionary [theory] has, to a great degree, forced religion out of its territory. For those who accept evolution, it necessitates a non-literal interpretation of those stories in the Bible that clash with the theory, on one hand, on the other, Christians will not abandon their belief that the story of Christ is literally true. Furthermore, it's not clear that simply giving up the literal interpretation of the Bible would suffice to reconcile the domains of science and religion. Bear with me, please, and consider first the idea that God created life by personally guiding the process of evolution. Although this is consistent with the bare fact of evolution, it conflicts with a central tenet of the modern theory of evolution, which is that the design in organisms is a product of "mindless accomulation of random accidents". This is not only inconsistent with evolutionary theory but also problematic. Because, for example, adaptation appear to be designed to enhance inclusive fitness. It's curious that God has used inclusive fitness as His guiding priciple, for this means that He chose to design life by a criterion that would make it perfectly explicable as the product of "mindless process of gene selection". Not only that, in addition, all species have design flaw and imperfections, which is a very poor evidence of being created by a "perfect being"

It is possible but not necessary. This view make only a very particular kind of Creationism correct. All the rest of what Creationists usually tell is just unscientific garbage. Further information: "The world's scientific community united yesterday to launch one of the strongest attacks yet on creationism, warning that the origins of life were being "concealed, denied or confused"." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0622-03.htm "Arguments against Creationism "With just enough of learning to misquote." " http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html "Scientific Evidence For Evolution and against Creation 'Science'" http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/

Well creationism stresses that God created it instantly and that man was man and not a homosapian in the beginning and that the world just popped out of nowhere while evolution stresses that it took millions of years to take place but what if the Bible was speaking in code? What if seven days to God is 4 billion years?

Yep yep yep. We are here to realize who we really are. Not this body, not this mind. The closer we get to this concept, the more God is realized, the more God is realized, the closer we become to the source. Its our divine right and gift. May we all wake up. Wake up now My children wherever you are Wake up now My children and see who you are Its time to wake up now you've slept for so long Its time to wake up now and Sing me this song.

I believe its a matter of both. but you know scientists who are evolutionists, creation is a LIE to them. They will always reject creation, they are too headstrong to believe that it could be both. to them, its evolution or nothing