The first thought of this particular answerer is that it is a silly thing that people are still debating this long after the matter has been sufficiently settled by scientific means. But then people are silly, so I should have expected nothing less.
Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.
These point to Divine Creation:
Also:
1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."
3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.
4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).
5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.
6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.
7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.
8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.
9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.
10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).
11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).
12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).
13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.
14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.
15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)
16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy
And: Evidence of a young Earth
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there. The only way around this is to assume that helium is escaping into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving at above the escape velocity, of 24,200 miles per hour. The usual speed of helium atoms is only 5,630 mph. A few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the atmosphere.
This is an unsolved problem, concerning which the atmospheric physicist C.G. Walker stated: "There appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere." Another scientist, J.W. Chamberlain, said that this helium accumulation problem "… will not go away, and it is unsolved."
Also see:
God's wisdom seen in His creations
Actually, there is no 'creationism versus evolution' debate, at least no longer. Instead, scientists go about their business of understanding the natural world, and creationists go about their business of fortifying belief in God.
In fact, Stephen J. Gould proposed the concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). He proposed that the domain or magisterium for science is the empirical realm - what the universe is made from and why it works the way it does. He said that the magisterium of religion includes the ultimate meaning and moral values. These magisteria are nonoverlapping - science does not comment on the ultimate meaning of life, while religion should not comment on the natural world. In this view, scientific and theological perspectives do not need to be debated or reconciled, because theologians accept the findings of science about our origins, while science does not seek to disprove the existence of God.
she says that its nessesary to know about creationism along with evolution
Christian Kummer has written: 'Der Fall Darwin' -- subject(s): Evolution (Biology), Creationism 'Der Fall Darwin' -- subject(s): Evolution (Biology), Creationism
Converging Zone - 2012 Creationism vs- Evolution 1-1 was released on: USA: 19 July 2012
President Eisenhower did not mandate evolution, this is a myth as far as my research has shown. As a matter of fact he was a staunch believer in Creationism. See link: http://www.icr.org/article/presidential-support-for-creationism
1) In order to reconcile Creation with Evolution, Old-Earth Creationism holds that God made the universe and then guided Evolution over long epochs.2) In repudiation of Evolution, Young-Earth Creationismholds that God created the universe and living things relatively recently without the use of Evolution.See also the Related Links.Link: Evidence for CreationLink: Can you show that God existsLink: God's wisdom seen in His creations
Evolution does NOT involve creationism.Evolution is a testable and therefore provable explanation as to how the diversity of life on earth has happened.Creationism is a religious viewpoint and therefore a mater of faith.AnswerI agree with the above. Evolution does NOT involve Creationism. Evolution is a branch of biological science and thus rejects "supernatural" claims such as those of Creationism, does not need to consider them. Creationism, often hanging on Genesis, the first book of the Bible, predates scientific inquiry and the scientific method and so is thus rejected by science and thus evolutionary science. In the public spotlight, the so-called Evolution-Creation "controversy" and all the on-stage arguments and debates might make it seem as though Evolution and Creationism (and Intelligent Design) have a lot to do with one another, but I doubt Creationism gets much mention at all in scientific laboratories and scientific conferences (it can't because it hasn't got anything to say about the real world.)
Buddhist believe there are no gods. Evolution would be the logical belief they would follow.
reconciliation of Creation with Evolution is the view of Old-Earth Creationism, which holds that God made the universe and then guided Evolution over long epochs.In repudiation of Evolution, however, Young-Earth Creationism holds that God created the universe and living things relatively recently without the use of Evolution.See also:Is there evidence for Creation?Can you show that God exists?Seeing God's wisdom
Most certainly not side-by-side. That would imply that they are equivalent notions. Evolution, however, is a scientific theory, and creationism is religious myth. Evolution belongs in biology classes, creationism in something like comparative religion courses.
Creationism is religious dogma. Nothing proves its correctness. As any scientist with a dictionary would tell you, nothing proves evolution either. But there is a heck of a lot of evidence and testing that suggests it is about as right as we can get.
Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory supported by extensive evidence, and should be taught in science classes. Creationism, however, is based on religious beliefs and is not supported by scientific evidence, so it is not appropriate to be taught in a science classroom. It may be more suitable for discussion in courses on religion or philosophy.
Of course someone could.