Which is more believable: creation or evolution?

Creation ...we see; evolution ...we believe.

Evolution is clearly true, but in a situation where the information which supports it is unavailable, creationism looks like the better bet because biology is good at mimicking design. If, for example, it wasn't clear that the planet was more than a few thousand years old, there would've been very little time for much evolution to occur. Given the two assumptions that life has been around for many millions of years and that genes can change, evolution is the only logical conclusion i can see. It would be refutable if mutations did not take place or if it became evident that life was a recent development.

If education is restricted in a particular way (i homeschool, by the way, and i'm not a creationist), it might appear that creationism is more believable. If you are simply in a situation where the information is unavailable because rational enquiry hasn't been pursued sufficiently far or you're in an environment where important information is lacking, such as the absence of other species of primate as obtained in mediaeval Europe, you might come to different conclusions.

I should also point out that there are possible intermediate positions such as theistic evolution or old-Earth creationism, which i wouldn't see as tenable, and that the original meaning of creationism is simply the belief that a deity created the world and does not rule out evolution.

Evolution

Belief is an opinion. Science strives to keep those out and stick with facts. Creation is believable while evolution is thoughtful.

faith has nothing to do believing in creation or evolution!! I have faith and I believe in evolution!

I have faith in humanity and the Sun!

Sun is God...because it's there up in sky illuminating us everyday, making it possible for us to live. If I can see something then I'll believe in it. Evolution has proof then I believe in it.

It really depends. Evolution is the theory science has made up to try and give a logical explanation for why we are on this Earth. Creation is the theory that God created the world and the first people. Personally, I think that it's a little of both. Although in science there is evidence that humans were created by Evolution, I think that there must be a God that created this world.

Creation Myths work because they provide easy answers that minds find easier to believe.

The blind watchmaker argument suggests that our world seems too perfect to have happened by chance. Admittedly evolution might be responsible for some of the tweaking of our world but modern physics suggests that our universe was tweaked prior to the big bang. Thus suggesting that the creation of our universe was not random; suggesting possible design or designer.

Lee Smolin suggests that our universe was tweaked by evolution prior to our big bang, in a similar process that living organisms are tweaked by evolution prior to our birth. Animals and plants are not random things they are fitted to their environment supposedly by evolution.

The Blind Watchmaker argument might seem off at first but there are coincidences that suggest our universe is highly tweaked. Lee Smolin's challenge to tweak our universe's variables to make more black holes is one example. Another example is the universe is finely balanced between expansion and contraction.

Creationists' explanation of apparent tweaking is the existance of a creator or Watchmaker.

Smolin's solution is that the universe is an evolved organism born from a parental exchange like living organisms like ourselves. This of course poses the question as to whether our universe is self aware with desires, thoughts and feelings.

One version of the coincidence theory suggests that life as we know it could only happen from finely tuned scenarios, and could not have happened by chance. E.g. if our universe were much hotter spacetime itself would melt tearing spacetime apart. Even with the self repairing properties at the quantum level, if spactime melted or evaporated life as we know it could not exist.

There is however a strong chance that the evolutionary forces towards towards structure we see in our world might also apply to a gaseous spacetime , forming cloud-like structures. Creatures in such a universe might think that life as they know it could not exist in a frozen rigid structure like our spacetime.

First off; I agree with those who have said both can be true.

But as far as what is more believable; it's obviously creation. It's much more believable that a Higher Power created all that there is, including life and the perfect conditions for it; as opposed to the fact that it all happened by itself with the perfect conditions for life.

Furthermore, creation can be proven as much of the Bible has been proven true. Many historical events written about in the Bible correspond to historical events; they found Noah's Ark, they found pieces of the Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea... etc. Extreme evolution, however, is a theory. Yes, we have observed moderate evolution in the form of minor changes in species and changes in viruses (such as when they adapt to their host and become immune to medicines). But extreme evolution, an actual changing from one species to another, is at best a guess that it took place. Yes, scientists have observed similarities in species; but that is not proof that they evolved nor stemmed from one another. If one observed, say the Simpsons cartoon show, one can see that much of the characters have similar style eye shape and head shape. But that doesn't mean that they evolved from each other... they have similar characteristics because they were all drawn by the same creator! See what I mean?

I am still up in the air if I believe in extreme evolution or not. But it is a possibility.

I don't believe the two are in conflict with each other. Creation is achieved through evolution in part and by creation. I believe we are designed by many factors. I do not exclude the hand of a creator in that design. The original primordial environment suggestions do not add up nor do many of the explanations given for species development. The ignorance gap exists in both isles of nay sayers, but again I do not see a conflict.

Such a play on words! Believable, as in the sense of having faith in, is clearly found among those who advocate for creation. They advocate a position without natural evidence to support their faith of the testament given to them via an old book, but a book who's age is a mere moment compared to the vastness of time measured in the natural features of the cosmos. They truly believe in the words of their ancient book(s). To speak of something being believable, as in the sense of being a likely outcome based on evidence, then the evidence is clearly in favor of evolution. Not only does it make the most sense in the biological sciences, but it's also the only theory that meshes with all the other sciences. When Darwin first proposed natural selection as the mechanism of evolution it seemed to suffer from many problems. Physics hadn't yet discovered nuclear fusion so most physicists couldn't see how the sun could burn long enough for natural selection to take place. The discovery of the nature of the sun's energy was discovered after Darwinian evolution was proposed and independently confirms the old age of the Earth. Another problem Darwin couldn't figure out was why didn't biological features just blend in an uniform fashion. Mendel's discover of genetic inheritance, once again, independently backed up Darwinian evolution by solving the blend problem. Much later the discovery of DNA would confirm, explain and expand Mendel's theories and give a biochemical understanding of evolution. Only evolution is believable, in the sense of being most likely true based on the evidence.

I say that both exist. Science is a quest for truth, for how the universe works. God created the universe and how it works, so science is our quest to discover how God works. I can accept that live adapts to its surroundings. However, life is far too complex to occur unguided.

Our body is a collection of chemical reactions in equilibriums that shift when a factor changes in our environment. For example, our bones have an equilibrium that governs how much bones is produced. When pressure is placed on the bone, the equilibrium shifts to create more bone (which happens to cause the bone to be able to take the stress, us adapting to our environment in such a way that it seems designed). The human brain is the most complex collection of matter that we know of and we all have one. Cells starting out the same and later coming together and becoming specialized is amazing. For it to occur without some intelligent influence is like Legos being dumped out of a box and forming a house without some little kid putting them together.

Science was not created to disprove God, but to find out how God works. To try to comprehend more about Him and His creation. Life does adapt (evolve) but could not get to the point it is now at without guidance from some form of intelligence (God).