Whenever creationism departs from the scientific evidence, it should not be considered fact. Scientists do not set out to prove that God did not create the world, but they do say that the biblical account can not be literally true.
For further information, giving both the biblical viewpoint, the secular viewpoint and the creationist viewpoint, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Neither Evolution nor Creation can be proven to the satisfaction of all doubters. That is what makes full free-will possible. For further reading, these links may be a start (from the Creation viewpoint): What_are_some_proofs_offered_by_Creationists http://judaism.answers.com/jewish-philosophy/can-you-prove-that-god-exists http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_26.htm
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
No, biblical creation is not a fact; it is not how the world came into being and it is not how humans evolved. I can say this because there is no evidence for Creation, either as portrayed in the Book of Genesis or held by Creationists (yes, they are different). The world is far too old (4.5 billion years) and the fossil record too complete for the notion that the world and all lifeforms suddenly came into being just a few thousand years ago.
In the absence of evidence, proponents of this hypothesis give us emotive explanations, such as complexity and order, or try to attack what they understand the science of evolution to be about. Often,this just tells us that Creationists simply do not understand science.
YES!
Her creation intrigued the group.
Behold my latest creation!What will be Doctor Frankenstein's next creation?
No. The 'Big Bang' is a scientific hypothesis for the creation of the universe, not a religious tradition. It could be harmonised with divine creation in general, but not with the biblical creation stories.
De-creation is when sin triumphs over evil. Genesis is like a 3 act play: Creation------God creates (and everything is good) De-creation--Sin destroyes Re-creation--God saves In de-creation, sin triumphs over evil and that is the cause of the shortening life spans.
The idea of the "pillars of creation" are as old as God. The actual implementation is not.
evolution can be proven that is why it is a fact, The biblical creation is a belief and not proven.
Evolution is scientific fact. Creation is religious faith masquerading as real science.
Hell no!! I know this for a fact!!
in part due to the fact that, to represent anything that is a creation of Gods is a sin. Geometric art is not an attempt to recreate/represent the creation of God.
The fact that at least some Americans leave school not believing in the Creation Myth.
British A creation of Bernard Cornwell he serves with the fictictious South Essex regiment, but is in fact a Rifleman of the 95th.
That fact is not known. God created the angels in times past, well before the creation of the Earth.
Merits of ice carving include the beautiful look of the finished product, and the fact that ice is inexpensive. Demerits of ice carving would be the fact that it does not last. Your creation will eventually melt.
If god's perfect creation is man, then god should go look for a new job. It doesn't prove anything because we created god. This therefore results in the fact that we are god if you are right.
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.2.the fact of being created.3.something that is or has been created.4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.(See also: Is there evidence for Creation?)5.the world; the universe.6.an original product of the mind, especially an artistic work.
I don't think there is a way to determine this due to the fact that multiple people helped in the creation of the fanny pack.
There is no theory of creation. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much about the fact of evolution. The only significance to human society is that some people can not accept the real and modern world because of ideological constraints.