0
Evolution has evidence, while creation only has The Bible, a book written by men no matter how inspired they might have been. Critics of evolutionary theory used to point to the lack of transitional fossils in the evolutionary record but transitional fossils have gradually been discovered, demonstrating just how one species evolves into its successor species.
Creation is the view that God created things just as they are, with no change. Yet countless fossils, and now the evidence of DNA, prove without doubt that evolution has been going on for nearly four billion years. The ancestors and near-relatives of modern humans have been found and studied.
Living things sometimes seem to exhibit evidence of design, but this is really only evidence that natural selection has promoted the most effective organisms. Evolution can not reasonably be denied and therefore is the stronger case.
The manmade idea called the Theory of Evolution had its heyday in the Age of Enlightenment of the 19th and 20th Centuries. With advancements in the fields of science, this theory is being challenged on multiple fronts. Today, there is much debate on fundamental laws governing the entire universe. This is the Anthropic Principle: Many in the fields of mathematics and physics agree that from the very beginning - the Big Bang of some 15 billion years ago - these fundamental laws had to already be in place, and set exactly, to allow our universe to exist the way it does in our time - with us humans here. Indeed, mathematically, it is beyond improbability that this universe of ours would randomly come into existence with just the right properties to allow humans to exist. Life therefore requires a Lawgiver.
On the biological front, scientists are finding that intelligent design exists in everything they examine. In my school days, the simple cell was just that - an organism of matter with some vaguely identifiable parts within. Today, under very strong microscopes, we can see that the cell is a complex information-processing machine with tens of thousands of organelles and vastly complex protein molecules, each arranged in finely-tuned algorithms of communication and synthesis. And our human bodies contain some 60 trillion of these, which store information in DNA, replicated also in various forms of RNA, following the mathematical laws of information. To many, this shows Intelligent Design requiring a Designer and not random evolutionary change.
Just consider the human eye, which Charles Darwin, who fathered the modern theory of evolution, admitted that such complex organs as the eye would be difficult to explain using his theory. Or how about creating life from non-life as scientists have been attempting for decades now. Most have come to the conclusion that the law of Biogenesis is correct. Life can only come from life and requires a life-giver or Creator.
To conclude, one should also ask, how does evolution explain the mystery of human consciousness? Why do we know we know? Or how about dreams/visions or even the modern phenomenon of NDEs - near death experience. Without taking into account the God-given "Spirit in Man" (see Job 32:8 and 1 Corinthians 2:11), it is impossible IMHO. Yet rest assured, there will always be some scientists who, not wanting to believe in God, will remain determined to come up with some explanation which excludes Divine creation. Believers call these "fanciful theories" which attempt to explain the complexities of life. Reading most/all of these simply requires a huge leap in logic as they assume a mathematically improbable event "just happened to happen." For me then, Creation has the much stronger case.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoEvolution has evidence, while creation only has the Bible, a book written by men no matter how inspired they might have been. Critics of evolutionary theory used to point to the lack of transitional fossils in the evolutionary record but transitional fossils have gradually been discovered, demonstrating just how one species evolves into its successor species.
Creation is the view that God created things just as they are, with no change. Yet countless fossils, and now the evidence of DNA, prove without doubt that evolution has been going on for nearly four billion years. The ancestors and near-relatives of modern humans have been found and studied.
Living things sometimes seem to exhibit evidence of design, but this is really only evidence that natural selection has promoted the most effective organisms. Evolution can not reasonably be denied and therefore is the stronger case.
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoThe manmade idea called the Theory of Evolution had its heyday in the Age of Enlightenment of the 19th and 20th Centuries. With advancements in the fields of science, this theory is being challenged on multiple fronts. Today, there is much debate on fundamental laws governing the entire universe. This is the Anthropic Principle: Many in the fields of mathematics and physics agree that from the very beginning - the Big Bang of some 15 billion years ago - these fundamental laws had to already be in place, and set exactly, to allow our universe to exist the way it does in our time - with us humans here. Indeed, mathematically, it is beyond improbability that this universe of ours would randomly come into existence with just the right properties to allow humans to exist. Life therefore requires a Lawgiver.
On the biological front, scientists are finding that intelligent design exists in everything they examine. In my school days, the simple cell was just that - an organism of matter with some vaguely identifiable parts within. Today, under very strong microscopes, we can see that the cell is a complex information-processing machine with tens of thousands of organelles and vastly complex protein molecules, each arranged in finely-tuned algorithms of communication and synthesis. And our human bodies contain some 60 trillion of these, which store information in DNA, replicated also in various forms of RNA, following the mathematical laws of information. To many, this shows Intelligent Design requiring a Designer and not random evolutionary change.
Just consider the human eye, which Charles Darwin, who fathered the modern theory of evolution, admitted that such complex organs as the eye would be difficult to explain using his theory. Or how about creating life from non-life as scientists have been attempting for decades now. Most have come to the conclusion that the law of Biogenesis is correct. Life can only come from life and requires a life-giver or Creator.
To conclude, one should also ask, how does evolution explain the mystery of human consciousness? Why do we know we know? Or how about dreams/visions or even the modern phenomenon of NDEs - near death experience. Without taking into account the God-given "Spirit in Man" (see Job 32:8 and 1 Corinthians 2:11), it is impossible IMHO. Yet rest assured, there will always be some scientists who, not wanting to believe in God, will remain determined to come up with some explanation which excludes Divine creation. Believers call these "fanciful theories" which attempt to explain the complexities of life. Reading most/all of these simply requires a huge leap in logic as they assume a mathematically improbable event "just happened to happen." For me then, Creation has the much stronger case.
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago1) 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.
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.Also see:
God's wisdom seen in His creations
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why is it unlikely for people to ever run 1 mile under 2 minutes?
Human evolution has no need to make one achieve such things as these. Also, in case evolution would be going into a direction where this would be possible, it would take millions of years for humankind to achieve such a thing. It is incredibly unlikely to happen.
Why was the scopes trial such an important in closely follow court case?
The Scopes trial was important because it brought national attention the creation versus evolution debate. The anti-evolution movement remained strong in some parts of the United States after the trial.
What court case ruled that evolution can be thought in schools?
The court case which ruled that evolution could be taught in schools was that of Edwards v. Aguillard.
Is evolution part of creation?
Though one can claim to believe in Divinely-guided evolution, this is often not the case. The general paradigm in which Evolution is taught, is one of mere random events.Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution was an unquestionable fact, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there are some highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.Those wishing to look for further evidence may find these links useful:See also:Is there evidence against Evolution?God's wisdom seen in His creationsCan you show that God exists?
Does the Big Bang support the Bible creation story?
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.
Does evolution defy religious beliefs of creation?
Every human tribe had/has its own "creation story" that evolved from an ancient time when science was not available to explain how we got here. People made up their own stories to explain the world around them and it's events. Creation stories/beliefs all revolve around some gods and goddesses giving birth, somehow, to the human race, in its present form. The Judeo-Christian creation story is that humankind was created in god's image and all humans came from a single pair only a few thousands of years ago: Adam and Eve.Evolution defies that notion by showing that the evolution of life on earth was a slow process and that the present life forms evolved over millions of years. It is difficult to argue with the vast number of earlier human remains, some millions of years old, that now populate research facilities, universities and museum collections around the world.Evidence supports evolution as a fact. No evidence supports any of the various religious creation myths.See also:http://christianity.answers.com/theology/when-science-challenges-the-biblehttp://history.answers.com/bible/conundrums-of-the-creation-myth
What is stronger a small skinny tornado or a large tornado?
Generally large tornadoes are stronger but that is not always the case.
How do you evolve Ditto into ditti?
In the case of most pokemon, you have Ditto transform during battle. In the case of "Ditti", however, there is no way to do it. Ditto does not evolve, and Ditti is a creation by a very clever fan somewhere out there. In fact, Ditto's usefulness is limited to only a few cases where one is otherwise overwhelmed by a foe's attacks, thus an evolution will never be necessary.
What weapons can you get for Lego batman ps2 character creation?
suit case?
Is creation intelligent design or evolution compatible with abiogenesis?
Scienctific theory declares that after the origin of life (abiogenesis), evolution set in. In the chemical evolution of abiogenesis, something had to happen to make life evolvable. The cell had to copy the nucleic acid, divide and get on with it from there and the copying had to very very slightly error prone for evolution to get going. Natural Selection would work on the variants. Abiogenesis and Evolution by Natural Selection are both scientific theories. Evolution is a far more robust theory than abiogenesis. But they are both science, with objective evidence and sensible hypotheses in their favour.Creation is religion. It may find Evolution implausible, but if that is the case, it is odd to ask 'Is Creation compatible with abiogenesis?'. If Creation rejects Evolution, then wouldn't it reject abiogenesis? If Evolution implies creatorlessness, then what of abiogenesis? Of course, the thinker might declare that Evolution is compatible with the idea of a creator. The creator guides the process, perhaps? But what of the beginning of life? Does the creator allow abiogenesis to proceed with simply chemicals? Perhaps the idea of a creator is superfluous to the notion of abiogenesis then. Certainly the science of Evolution and abiogenesis finds the notion of a creator superfluous. It does not help to consider a creator when all the ingredients for the beginning of life are probably available by themselves, as implied by the amino acid production in the Miller-Urey experiment. It might not help to consider a creator even if the Miller-Urey experiment produced no life-molecule results.Intelligent Design (ID) is Creation in disguise, or "Scientific Creation" in disguise. It is determined to undermine the teaching of science, with Wedge Documents and court cases and so on. "Scientific Creation" is oxymoronic by the way. The idea of Intelligent Design is "Life is too complex, therefore a Designer did it". Well, that puts not much thought into the matter. What is more, the Designer is deemed to be undetectable, which is unbelievably unhelpful and doesn't add any knowledge to anything. You can hypothesise the idea of a Designer and you can go no further, nor make any predictions about it as true scientific theories must. The Designer is as superfluous in description of life and the Universe as a creator.I would say that only Evolution is compatible with abiogenesis. Both are scientific ideas. If you want to work out how life works or the Universe works, then the scientific method is for you. Creation and Intelligent Design are not science and do not look at the Universe itself to work out how it works. They only look at the stories in an ancient pre-Science book, before we knew that to find out about the life or the Universe, we must lookat life and the Universe themselves. So how can Creation and ID work out anything about the Universe or life at all.
What make glue stronger?
Depends on which glue. In the case of most epoxy glues, heat will make the joint stronger, in silicon glues holding the joint under cold water will make it stronger.
Which Supreme Court case was responsible for the creation of the exclusionary rule?
chimel v. califorina
