Question

Was Creation made by a Intelligent Creator or was it evolution?

Answer 1

(Taken by Brochure, Was life created by Jehovah's Witness)

Answer 2

Fibers
˛ Man-made product:Kevlar is a tough
man-made fiber used in such items
as bulletproof vests. To manufacture
Kevlar, high temperatures and
hazardous solvents are required.
˛ Natural product:Orb-weaving spiders
produce seven types of silk. The
sturdiest, known as dragline silk, is
lighter than cotton yet, ounce for
ounce, is stronger than steel and
tougher than Kevlar. If enlarged to the
size of a football field, a web of
dragline silk 0.4 inch thick with strands
1.6 inches apart could stop a jumbo jet
in flight! Spiders produce dragline silk
at room temperature, using water as a
solvent.

Answer 3

Navigation
˛ Man-made product: Some commercial
airliners have computerized autopilot systems that
can not only guide a plane from one country to
another but also land the plane. The computer used
in one experimental autopilot system is about the
size of a credit card.
˛ Natural product: Using a brain the size of the tip of
a ballpoint pen, the monarch butterfly migrates up to
1,800 miles from Canada to a small patch of forest
in Mexico. This butterfly relies on the sun to help it
navigate, and it has the ability to compensate for the
movement of the sun across the sky.

Answer 4

Lenses
˛ Man-made product: Engineers
have developed an artificial compound
eye that fits 8,500 lenses into a space
the size of a pinhead. Such lenses could
be used in high-speed motion detectors and
ultrathin multidirectional cameras.
˛ Natural product: Each eye of a dragonfly is made
up of some 30,000 lenses. These lenses produce
images that combine to create a wide mosaic view.
The compound eyes of the dragonfly are superb at
detecting movement.

Answer 5

There are many more examples these are just a few....

Answer 6

Many evidences showing the world was made by God according to the Biblical account of creation (not just some random intelligent being)

Answer 7

The probability of evolution an creationism are the same; they are 1:1. The real question is is creationism rational and logical; according to fossils it is not. The reason is creationism (genesis) forbids the very idea of evolution. Though we have very real proof of evolution that of what we call transitional fossils. I had a private debate with @Opcode who agreed with me on this. Though he claimed that evolution was just another view point of how God created the world. Though if you are Christian I do not see how you could take evolution as true. Genesis contradicts evolution if interpreted literately. Of all Christian scientists they none take genesis literately. As any sane being knows the world was not created in six days.
@Rookies2121 You're trying to claim that man-made objects and the real world have some correlation and imply God. Which by any rational thinking is wrong. As well as the logical fallacy burden of proof. Evolution implies complexity from time! Not a silly God! If we were dependent on God's existence would surely would know by now. Hence your correlations are scientifically wrong, and logically flawed. You also imply that there is a god which is outright wrong as you have no proof for him.

Answer 8

I believe in Evolution and God, Just because God knows the future doesn't mean He caused it. God is an eternal being who may come into existence in the future, our time frame, able to communicate with the past and exerting some control on this planet if not the universe. Christ is known a God's right hand and is there to bring about God, essentially feed forward if you may.

Answer 9

"Was Creation made by a Intelligent Creator or was it evolution?"

The theory of evolution doesn't propose an explanation for the origin of life, so this thread has no purpose.

Answer 10

You aught to study Biology and its origins a little more because evolution does account for the origin of life on out planet. I believe its quit accurate but I still believe in God the Father and the Son which may well of come into being by evolution.

Answer 11

you must've read it off some dubious religious website because i've studied it a fair amount and even read "On the origin of species" by C. Darwin. The theory doesn't claim to explain how the first cell came to be. If you have a document where it says otherwise, please post the citation.

Answer 12

And it provides for an inconsistent worldview if you try to compromise evolution with the Bible.

Answer 13

First of all...you should also know that god has many titles..one such as Intelligent Creator.

Answer 14

@InspiredAtheist You say like im a Cristian when it better to ask first...I'm a Jehovah Witness.

Answer 15

The Bible does not support fundamentalists and creationists who claim that the creative days were literal 24 hour days.
The Bible frequently uses the term “day” to designate various periods of time. In some cases these periods are of an unspecified length. The account of creation found in the Bible book of Genesis is one example of this.
In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years.
God had already created the universe, including a lifeless planet Earth, by the time the first creative day began.
Evidently the six creative days were long periods during which Jehovah God prepared the earth for human habitation.
The Bible account of creation does not conflict with scientific conclusions about the age of the universe.

Answer 16

Hold on, that is totally incorrect. I think you've fallen into the translation trap. In English, we have one word for day. But Hebrew has many words for day. Day as in long periods of time, day as in literal, 24 hour days, etc etc. In Genesis 1-4, the word "day" meaning a literal 24 hour day is used. If we try to say God meant "day" as in thousands of years, then apparently God makes mistakes and used the wrong Hebrew form of day. Inconsistent worldview.

Answer 17

@InspiredAtheist and @KenJW...This may a bit long but i hope you can read it all...(sorry bout that)
Myth 1..Mutations provide the raw material needed to create new species.
. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations-random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals-can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed? In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection-the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed- could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for
Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lonnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species. Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lonnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.” Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in
general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw
conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lonnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lonnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
(Please read it..it took me a while to type it)

Answer 18

@PixieDust1 The Bible does not support
fundamentalists and creationists
who claim that the creative days
were literal 24-hour days. I know that is not true...

Answer 19

But i respect what your saying..but why do you say its 24 hour day? It cant just be becuase you read it somewhere it must be either you heard it or something idk. But why do you think that? with a bit more specific detail.. :)

Answer 20

@InspiredAtheist and @KenJW
In the mid-1800’s, British biologist Alfred
Russel Wallace agreed with Charles Darwin on
the theory of evolution by natural selection. But
even this renowned evolutionist is said to have
stated: “For those who have eyes to see and
minds accustomed to reflect, in the minutest
cells, in the blood, in the whole earth, and
throughout the stellar universe . . . , there is intelligent
and conscious direction; in a word, there is a mind.
Almost two thousand years before Wallace,
the Bible had already observed: “For [God’s] invisible
qualities are clearly seen from the
world’s creation onward, because they are perceived
by the things made, even his eternal
power and Godship.” (Romans 1:20) From time
to time, you might want to take a moment to re-
flect on the marvelous complexities found in
nature—from a single blade of grass to the
countless heavenly bodies. By examining creation
you can perceive the Creator.

Answer 21

I say its a literal, 24 hour day based upon the original Hebrew version of the Bible. We see Genesis 1-5 uses the word "yom". When "yom" is used with time such as a number, morning, evening, etc, it means a literal time. Was Jonah in the belly of the whale for 3000 yoms? Or 3 yoms? If we start saying that "yom" with a number DOESN'T mean literal, then we have completely messed up the Hebrew word just to fit our point of view. Many Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons use Genesis 1's "yom" as a literal 24 hour day. Aside from that, if we mix the Bible account with science, it STILL would contradict. Those millions of years in the fossil record before we see any humans would be, in your view, 5 days translated to 5 million years. We then see millions of years of death and suffering before Adam and Eve. When God made Adam and Eve, He called it "very good". In your worldview, why would God call millions of years of death and suffering "very good"? And the fossil record is different than the order of creation. So, even when folks try to compromise the two, they still end up contradicting each other. Check out answersingenesis.org for more info.

Answer 22

We even me trust me when i was learning about that i thought the same thing...but no i learned that there are one term day which means a 24 hour period but ALSO a 1000 day one. I learned when i had to use the 24 hour one with the 1000 days one. at first i did confuse myself, but there are also that. So its also learning when to use it logically.

Answer 23

But this is more likely a 1000 day one. not a 24 hour one. It all has to do with looking a bit deeper into the subject not just staying over it. Thats what my dad told me, when you want to find out something it is good to understand it first then start digging at it. Thats what helped me a lot when it came to these subjects. Like personally i love the staute that Daniel saw, in his vision.. ITs so intersting...also how the end is nearly hear closer than we can imagine..Im excited for that really excited for that. Jehovah is now making us try to help other people to accept the truth so more people can save themselves. Thats our job as JW's.

Answer 24

You mean "a day is like a thousand years" from the New Testament. Problem is that is that you are comparing a Greek word to a Hebrew word and saying as if they are the same. Greek is Greek. Hebrew is Hebrew. Two totally different words in totally different languages. They cannot be compared as if they are the same word.

Answer 25

yeah lol sorry bout that..i knew i was saying something wrong thanks for that. :)

Answer 26

like i said we need to use logic also when it would fit more properly into the situation...but 24 hour period day wont exactly fit for the creation days. Would you think God would have said a day later..why did he call them creations day? BEcuase it must have a bigger term also.

Answer 27

im not typing i dont know why it says i am

Answer 28

Let me ask you this. If you read Genesis 1-11 without any prior pretext, would you believe it meant "day" as in 24 hours or as in millions of years. If we try to combine the Bible and millions of years, we end up with God calling death and suffering "very good". This isn't about interpretation. Its about the character of God

Answer 29

Okay im sorry but i didnt get that at all.

Answer 30

Haha that's fine Glad we both came to an agreement :D

Answer 31

To God a day is as 1000 year, this is a metaphor for a long time, it could be a million or billion.
According to my knowledge everything emerges from the big bang, H, He, then stars, larger elements, planets. On our planet(existed 4.5 billion years) it may of taken 3 billion years for the first signs of life. In the next 1.5 billion years life evolutions, to duplicate evolution over this period is impossible for man to do with our time span. That fact that generally all life on earth is a DNA coded structure indicates a good possibility of a common source.

Answer 32

Many problems with what you just wrote.

#1 "A day is like a thousand years" is from the New Testament (which was written in Greek). You cannot compare a word in Greek-to-English to Hebrew-to-English. Because they are totally different words.

#2 God came from the Big Bang? God has no beginning nor end. He created time and therefore is outside the limits of time and did not need to be created.

Answer 33

@PixieDust1
"H, He, then stars"
H means Hydrogen and He means Helium. He isn't talking about God.

You're right! Greek and English and Hebrew aren't comparable <sarcasm>
Language wise some words aren't comparable but numbers are universal. One is one, two is two. Simple stuff.

Answer 34

@Rookies2121
Pseudoscience isn't science; you shouldn't try to use it to prove whatever god.

Also Jehovah Witness is a type of Christianity.

Answer 35

My religious source is the KJB Holy Bible, I've also read Roberts Alter Five Books of Moses 2004, Everett Fox Five Books of Moses, 1996, Douay Five Books of Moses, 1610, these are all in English and I know no other language except a bit of mathematics. I do not pretend to know ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Latin and to try to change existing English versions is at least a scholarly task, and to me its like reinventing the wheel. I'm sure no one on this site has the knowledge to so and only offer some variances they pick up somewhere. I accept the truth in the KJB Holy Bible in English as my fathers before me and do so otherwise would deny the fifth commandment.

Answer 36

@InspiredAtheist - Lol thanks for clarifying what Ken meant. I had no idea what he was talking about with "He" (didn't make the connection that Ken meant "He" as in helium) :P

Answer 37

@kenljw - I'm more of a Sola Scriptura fan, personally.

I do read Greek rather well, as most of my Bible reading is from a Bible written purely in Koine Greek. I also own a Koine dictionary, so I can understand all the different meanings a word has. Since I basically taught myself to read Greek (other than my pastor helped, and at the beginning I watched some Youtube videos to understand the alphabet), so I do not claim to be able to change existing versions to write new translations. Rather, I read the Greek, and often need to look up some words in my koine dictionary. This helps me understand what was really meant by a passage, not just what it meant after being translated to English. (I have nothing against many of the Bible versions. I've found NIV to be the closest to the Greek, along with KJV and NKJV).

And I don't think that reading a different Bible version would be breaking the 5th commandment. it wants us to honor our fathers, not be clones of them. We aren't showing any respect nor disrespect to them by reading a different translation.

Answer 38

The basis of my position is their were no Hebrew translations in existence by 1,000 AD, the existing Latin, the Vulgate, in Roman Catholic Church, and the existing Greek translations in the Eastern Orthodox Church were continually copied as the older decayed and were lost. There's known variations in certain text from previous version in that there were differences in copies in existence. The period from 400 AD to 1600 AD many manuscripts were recopied and some with deletions and others with additions, therefore one has to trust the translation of the time, which are the KJB Holy Bible, 1611, the Douay Old Testament,1610, and the Rheims New Testament, 1582. Seeing one is considered Protestant and the other Roman Catholic they can be compared for major differences. I prefer not to use newer versions because there no way to know what definitions their using, with the originals I can use my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition and use the first or maybe the second definition of a word. You really must use 16th century language to understand what they were talking about back then otherwise you get a perverted sense of meaning. With any other version you read you must really understand your putting your trust, faith, in the translator no matter what language its in.

Answer 39

Yes. Many newer translations twist the words of the Bible to fit their own bias. I only use NLT, NIV, NKJV, KJV, and koine. All the others seem to twist many of the meanings to fit their own purposes.

Answer 40

@InspiredAtheist Im so sorry but uhh what? All im trying to prove that there is an Intelligent Creator behind all of us... Many people as we know it twist it..saying his name is too sacred to be use. well yeah. So my point was to prove that there was someone who created us.. Not for just some sort of gas explosion that caused every single detail about us.. talking about ourselves humans.

Answer 41

Have you ever heard the saying "Rome wasn't built in day", try reading Isaiah chapter 66 verse 7 to 9. We as Humans generally see things by way of cause and effect but have you ever considered that a certain outcome will in effect create a cause. Ones who read scripture and try to create meaning from a tow, a process called exegesis, may be entirely in error read Isaiah chapter 1 verse 31. Some people always speak in tows, a small thread of scriptures, and their are always those that will follow, but scriptures are meant to be consumed in their entirety and the Lords will reveal their meaning. When I was a child I thought as a child, now that I'm a man I put away childish things, and hopefully become a child of God.

Answer 42

Yup. When people bring their opinions and try to make fit the Bible (exegesis), it totally changes what the Scripture was actually saying. Reminds me of whats happening with Genesis 1-11. People misinterpret due to their own opinions.

Answer 43

@KenLJW I hope you didn't mean that i only pay attention to some scriputres only..becuase that is what we DON't do. We go all over the bible..start to finish..to actually say something...we don't base on our own opinions..becuase thats just dead wrong.. People do yes i've seen that. What i was trying to say is that..the reason why i posted this question is to acutally SAY that there is a God.. that made us not evolution which i personally say its unlogical. But that was all my point..not to mix up or just stick to some verses of what the Bible says. If i would do that.i wouldn't be posting anything..becuase logically i wouldn't have anymore to say but what i know...and that would just make me sound annoying.

Answer 44

I rather not dispute evolution, I use the Bible mainly to obtain moral guidance. The Bible tells me what I should do, not what God does, therefore I follow the moral guidance of the Bible and leave the rest to my Lords. As Christ said "With God all is possible" and this can only be for an individual that's willing to follow the teaching of the Father's morality, hopefully in a Christian perspective.

Answer 45

The way to accept the bible is practically the Whole bible...although evolution isn't exaclty in the bible, like i said i'm just putting this here because..Like i already said, just to prove that there is a God.

Answer 46

Proof of God can only come from God, as it say's in the prophet's "Every knee will bow".

Answer 47

@Rookies2121
It hurts my head to think that you believe that we came from a "gas explosion" though I don't blame you, even some atheists believe that the big bang was an "explosion" as seen here http://openstudy.com/study#/updates/5347d1cbe4b01730eeafc123

The big bang did not create us but the universe through evolution we came to be, both are backed with heavy science. You can't be a logical person and take the bible as literal tale, it is riddled with historical inaccuracies. I don't believe in the bible for it just seems so silly to when we can use science. The bible was a night time fairy tale, (more of a horror story to me) that is why I deny having to believe in it. The bible was obliviously written by humans as it contains inaccuracies. With the bible disproven doesn't the very essence of Christianity tear away?

Answer 48

How do you teach a child morality without having them go through a trial and error process. Yes the Bible is full of horror story's met to teach of consequences to ones actions. You might be able to teach an adult through logic and reason some set of morality but even then they may be so caught up in their immorality, addicted, the it may be almost impossible to escape. Humanitarianism is great but it does really shows how to instruct, children especially in today's society with it's permissiveness and lack of physical disciple. Any real set of morality in out society comes from the past, what our forefathers followed and taught, or the lack of it. It say's in the Old Testament teach a child the way of the Lord and they'll follow it all the day's of their life. The teaching of it is not obsolete, what's occurring is an democratic experiment of not only our politics but our morality.

Answer 49

@KenLJw i didn't get why you think i belive in the Big Bang... Maybe i said it wrong or something...but uh..i don't. The reason like ive said many times...it to prove that their is a god...not to belive in the Big Bang. And what you tell me..part from the Bible.. The Bible is actually the only perfect thing on earth if you think of it..Yes it was written by humans but INSPIRED by God. and im pretty sure you know that. The way you tell me about the Bible not to offend you or anything.. it kinda tells that your scared of the truth of what will happen in the future. The bible, isn't a tale. ITs real and what happened and whats going to happen. The Bible although it was written by humans..I didn't really get the point in that the Bible has inaccuracies.
God has his ways and we all know that...The Bible isn't horror its truth. God wasn;t cruel he was actually loving. Example the Israelites, to be honest they were stubborn.. God would warn them of not doing something but they would do it anyway. God had to show them that he is the God over then and practically discipline them. The way you teach a child..Thats every parents responsibility. When it says teach the child to the lords way its saying to teach him about the bible and know whats wrong and whats right.

Answer 50

Many religious people complain about public schools teaching sex education in the 4th and 5th grade, but actually puberty begins in the midst of it. They complain its just the mechanics of sex and not the morality. It's the function of parents and their religious affiliation to teach the morality. In Judaism the Torah, the five Books of Moses, are taught to their children at this age and some memorize whole Books for their Bar, Bat Mitzvah at the age of 13 or 14.
Contained in the Torah are the religious sexual morality as well as other cultural moralities, this is what Christian need at a young age to help them though a very rough period of life and prepare them for the rest. Some think this is to young but my experience, and from the one's I've worked with, I find many early traps for children may be avoided.

Answer 51

We could always say it was made by a creator who used evolution as his method.

Answer 52

@Cosmichaotic if you take the bible in literal sense evolution contradicts with it. If you are any other religion such as Judaism or Islam or Buddhism it is possible for you to say that it was the creator that used evolution as his method but for literal Christians it is impossible to put that forth.

Answer 53

You must remember the Bible was written in a different language originally. As well, it has gone through so many translations, and rewritten so many times from scribe to scribe, (Inherently mistakes will be made by the BEST of scribes). And from one language to another, the translations are rarely exact in nature - where an idea in one language is not even able to be written in the same way, or mean exactly the same thing in another language. For this reason, the Bible today is not what it was 2000 years ago and cannot, therefore, be taken in a literal sense.

Answer 54

For generalization sake, let's say we have a tribe called the Whatevijaman's. They may not even have a word describing the "Day" and "Night" as they live, say in Alaska where it can be day or night for weeks on end. When we take one of their texts and translate it to English, we will have much trouble deciding how to write what they mean when they are talking about events happening over 24 hour periods. This will give us a LOT of trouble in describing to an American, what the 'Day' actually means in the writing when it has no meaning to the culture in which it was written.

Answer 55

And it can be night or day for even months at a time in Alaska (or is months at a time - as this is a current phenomena that anyone living in Alaska can tell you about).

So when the text of theirs says 'This happened over a time period that refers to about a week or two', we may accidentally think of it as the Day, Night, etc. and not understand that the language they have does not have a representation for a 24-48 hour period...

Answer 56

This commonly themed problem within communicating from language to language will inherently make texts written in one language not be able to be taken as 'literal' or 100% 'accurate' when read by another culture.

Answer 57

They may be accurate and literal in one culture, and misunderstood by another (therefore not accurate/literal) for them.

Answer 58

I hope this helps you to understand that the Bible is the greatest book ever written, with more wisdom in 100 pages than perhaps 100 books written about wisdom.

However, the stories and tales told in the bible, cannot be used in the literal sense - rather, they should be looked at for what they really are.

Each story in the bible has a fundamental moral, or point in which it is trying to teach us the right way to live, what is wrong or right, and every story has a principle like this - something to be learned from reading and trying to understand it.

The bible is amazing, but if you try to take it literally, you will always come up short of getting from it what it really offers - wisdom, love, right living, morality, and much more.

Answer 59

If we use the Bible to derive morals for society, women have to marry their rapists - for me that is something I would never do.

The Bible is written in allegorical form shocking that some though still take it literally.

Answer 60

I agree.

Answer 61

In Geneses Dina is raped and two of her older brothers kill the rapist and his clan. There are more than one way to interpret scripture and all of them are not set in stone. You must consider the time, to rape a woman means one would have to take her as his wife and support her, not what you would consider rape today.

Answer 62

I believe in the creator Jehovah God :)