As far as I'm aware creationists generally believe the world to be around 6 thousand years old, while most scientists agree that it is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old. How can they not contradict each other?

Are you aware that creation is taking unnecessary depth to the evolution idea? I prefer not adding unnecessary depth to something when it makes no difference

There are several things in which creation and evolution align.... however Creationists do not agree completely on details, nor do evolutionists. And, there are some things in which current scientists are discovering things which disprove previous scientists. In the end, the most important thing is what we do with what is here now, how we treat each other, and that we honor God and all that He has provided for us.

No, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the info.

If they don't then..... ?

I'm aware that there are a lot of people who don't believe that, and a fact is often only as good as its application.

He did and does exist. Not believing in Him is your choice, but one you will eventually regret.

This has been my belief for several decades, regardless of the popular controversy. I see Christ's hand in setting up the universe to evolve naturally, and that His implementation of evolution through a VERY detailed set of rules might not be visible to our sketchy perception, but it's how the universe has functioned for billions of years. It's all part of what we see as chaotic change but which is governed by the natural principles. We do know from studies of quantum mechanics, that such things as direction of spin of subatomic particles can grossly effect things at a higher material or energy level, and the rules by which these characteristics govern the entire universe are the mark of a well-ordered mind working at an incredibly detailed level of design, so it is not the least bit out of line to speculate that other rules govern the evolution of the heavenly bodies and biological evolution. I am thoroughly convinced of this, and when evolutionists and creationists argue, I offer that they are both failing to see the big picture as I have just described it.

Yes, if you are talking about another creation, but no if you are referring to the Biblical Creation Account in Genesis. To some it may not, but it does contradict the account of Creation as given to us in the Bible. -In the Master's service. Thank you and God bless you!

Of course they contradict each other. They are opposing philosophies: one says that everything came about by random chance, then by more random chances and mutations each thing improved itself, through gradual slow processes, moving towards some new perfection. Creation says that everything was *created* which means Someone created it, that all things are created in the same form as they are now, and that types of creatures do not change from one type to another. To say evolution and creation are the same is to also say that Atheism and Theism agree.

Evolution (of species by natural selection) does not cover how the first living thing(s) got here. So, if you look at it strictly and narrowly, they do not. However, the Bible says that living things were created in separate "kinds" which are unrelated to each other, but modern biology says that all living things have one common ancestor.

Evolution and creationism have little to do with each other .

Yep. Aware of that. Evolution doesn't deal with how everything kicked off - it just explains the current diversity and how it got here from what came before. Evolution only deals with what is observed - in fossils, animals, plants, DNA and so on. It cannot know and does not care if there actually is an invisible, supernatural "force" behind the whole process. It could be a god, goddess, entire pantheon of gods or the Federated Union of Sentient Aliens influencing proceedings from afar. Evolutionary theory is still a valid explanation for what we see...

Sure. Evolution COULD have been how god did it. But for the most part it's creationists who try to force the issue.

That would depend upon how one defines both "Evolution" and "Creation". The philosophic naturalist/materialist defines evolution as a totally random and purposeless process that had no particular species in mind, least of all homo sapiens, and that all living things and species are just cosmic accidents. This certainly contradicts any creationist's view of the origin of species. This claim about evolution is though, happily, NOT a scientific theory but an article of faith, a doctrine that is a necessary inference from the axioms of their atheistic worldview (dare I say "religion"). Now if you define evolution as Darwin and the first 3 generations of biologists that followed him did (as just a process by which infinitessimal modifications in a species would be multiplied and augmented through successive generations due to natural selection, ultimately producing entirely different species), then, No, it doesn't preclude that that was the way God set it up in the first place, that evolution is in some way guided by Him, nor that God created the universe and the natural order at the start. Darwin said as much. Of course, Darwin's theory of the origin of species (by descent with gradual modifications through natural selection) is totally contraried by the evidence and by reason. Consequently, "evolution" has been re-defined by philosophic materialists to mean not so much a process (because they can't find it) but a claim: that all species developed out of other earlier species by some exclusively naturalistic mechanism or mechanisms, whether infinitessimally gradual or catastrophically rapid. Of course, this is niether a theory (as the "exclusively naturalistic process" part can't be proven) nor a fact (as it hasn't ever actually been observed to happen) but an article of faith for a philosophic materialist. Similarly, if you define "Creation" broadly -- that there is a God and He created the universe, natural law, all natural processes, and set the whole thing in motion, and may even intervene at various times and places to do something that those natural processes would not do on their own, then No, there is no contradiction between that and the idea that species developed through successive generations (descent) from earlier species. If however your view of Creationism is that of CRI -- that the world is only a few thousand years old; that all species were created at the start and while some have become extinct, no truly new species has come into being since THE creation; that there was no death before Adam sinned; and that all predatory, scavenging, or otherwise carnivorous behavior in the animal kingdom is a result of Man's Fall and the Curse, then I'd have to say that that was incompatible with any view of evolution or speciation anyone has yet proposed, however theistic. All arguments as to what contradicts what, depend on defining your terms at the start. Otherwise, you're not really saying anything.

Correct. In fact, it depends on a creative Agent. There are FAR more random states for natural selection to choose from which would be detrimental to any organism than states which would be neutral or beneficial. The odds of ANY beneficial mutation occurring naturally are infinitesimal. Also, evolution does not act slowly and constantly as so many of you insist. The mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium has been tested for decades now and has proven itself very robust. This throws a monkey wrench into the evolutionists' argument that natural selection acts alone to power evolution. [statement simplified for brevity] Changes happen quickly. This is a classic symptom of interference by an outside agent.

An excellent question. I have asked it myself many times in the interest of finding some common ground with those who are argueing opposing sides. To me, it seems logical to accept this as true, or at least a possibility.

Yes it does. And don't give me any crap that says otherwise.

Well when i speak of creationism, I'm referring to the Biblical account, in which evolution would contradict creationism.

I'm aware that you're going TO hell for thinking this.

Are you aware that that's not true?

So let me get this straight, Jesus rode the dinosurs and then prayed for them to evolve into Adam and Eve? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/431306643_528c65a6b3.jpg

It doesn't contradict all kinds of creationism. However, it contradicts many other kinds...Young Earth Creationism, for example.

Surely the whole point of the Theory of Evolution is to explain life on Earth without God? If Evolution does not contradict Creation, how come no Christians deduced it from studying the Bible before the C19th?

I'm Catholic, we are aware of this. :)

Creationism is dying out because it won't stand a chance against modern, well educated people in the 21st century. If you believe in creation, you'd believe in anything.

The Bible(which I Cherish) was,,, was ,,,was ,,,written by men,,, men,,,, ,men. Either way God was the Creator.

Creation through the process of evolution.

Surely, if God is behind Evolution, then he is not much of a God? After all 99% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. To some this might suggest that God made a lot of mistakes and that it took him billions of years of trial and error to arrive at humanity. This does not sound like the work of an all powerful supernatural being.

Yep!

If you believe that the Earth was created in 6 (literal) days and man was created on the 6th day, then it does contradict. Creation leaves no room for millions or billions of years of evolution, if you interpret the Bible literally. If you don't, then you can find ways to make anything OK.

WOW! I can't even begin to respond to all the lack of knowledge (to be kind) about evolution. At the end of the day though, evolution (including how life might have come into existence) does not conflict with creation, it just renders creation unnecessary.

Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not proof of an agenda. And God has always intended us to come to Him through faith, not through logic. Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of Creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God. Good science does not contradict Creation but bad science (evolution as it is taught today) does.

No but it does away with the need for a creation myth. And as our knowledge increases so the gaps in which god can exists diminish. And so eventually our god of the gaps will have no where to hide and will become even more irrelevant.

no it dosnt conderdict if your faith in god can be shoken by the thory of eveloution your faith isnt that strong my friends you just say god cant do that and if you dont beleive in eveolution happening on other planits but our you belittle god in a way your saying god is limmited in only makeing life ouccur onece if god who you say he is then he is powerful everything you could imagine is possable for god

YES i does, and its nothing to do with the time. Death entered the wold because of sin, the wages of sin is death. Not just the death of people, but everything. God created the world and it was good. death is not good. death is bad. there is no way God would of had countless species toil, suffer and die before evolving into man that sinned and brought death into the world. that doesn't work. if your going to believe in evolution at leat be true to it's nature; Godless

Creation(ism) says that all species ("kinds") were created separately at one time, and that they have remained unchanged since that time. Evolution(ism?) says ... oh, you know.

Where do you get your informaiton from? Genesis 1:3-31 in my Bible says everything was created in SIX days. 1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. Even DNA shows this to be true if you don't believe the Bible. It's a little hard to figure how some fish in the water or whatever you call it in evolution became a man! That first thing that came up out of the water, was it a male or female. If it was a male, it was soon dead. If it was a female, it had to have a male to keep the line going. Did it have lungs, or did it have gills? If it had lungs, how did it live in the water? If it had gills, how was it going to live on the land? If it had both, and evolution only makes things better, why would it develope lungs while it was in the water not knowing what it would need if it lived on the land. You better check out better information than what you have been given. Have a great day, and may God continue to bless you and yours!

You people make me sooo glad I believe in the Bible, and I wanna be as far away for you as I can get when Jesus comes back for us!

Are you aware that it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't?

No, I cannot be aware that such lies as this are true. Evolution has no need of gods. It has mountains of evidence while creation myths have no evidence. Why prefer one creation myth to all the many others anyhow?

i know that