Which is real creation or evolution?

Answer 1

Both are real, and neither contradicts the other. This is somewhat true: we are created. We have a Creator. Anyone who disagrees with me can talk to me and I will prove that we indeed have a Creator. There is no other explanation for the amazing and intricate detail that is in our body. The cells, all the systems in the body, and how we have been given exactly what we need. If you have studied life science then you can see how completely impossible it would be to get the intricate and amazing systems which we contain, from a simple explosion. Think of it this way: you have just received a new box of Legos and you shake them really hard. You just can't expect to open the box and see the intricate Tower of London that the kit was supposed to make. If you do expect this you are either brainwashed or insane. Now whether or not our Creator used the process of evolution is not clarified in the Bible so people have different beliefs.

Another answer: To say that those who believe in evolution are insane or brainwashed, we can say that the finger points both ways. There is no way to prove the creationism view point. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. It all began with the Big Bang around 14 billion years ago. Thinking man first was seen more than 500,000 years ago. What started the Big Bang...no one knows even if they would like to think that they know. At least scientists can admit that they still don't know it all.

To say that shaking a box of Legos and expecting them to form into the Tower of London is not what evolution is about. We are saying that life evolved from single cells and then organisms that have as few has 800 cells into larger and more complex organisms all under the response to the environment.

Another answer:

A Jewish answer is that we have an unbroken national tradition of 3300 years to the Revelation at Sinai. God states that He created the universe (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:10). This tradition is accepted by Christianity and Islam also. Not to mention, that Evolutionists have not put forth any putative proofs that would undermine the tradition.

God's creation of the universe explains the vast wisdom found within it.

There are some people who believe in Creation without quoting the Bible. Their reasoning includes:

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).

Another answer:

Many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

It can not be both ways. Besides mutations are harmful, helpful or neutral depending on the third base (wobble effect).

The dates that radioactive clocks have put on evolutionary history are astonishing. Life is well over 3.5 billion years old, and until about 600 million years ago, the planet was dominated by microbes. Radioactive clocks have shown that evolution can change its pace. Almost all scientists agree.

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould drew attention back to embryos. He documented the history of scientific research that had led to so much confusion. The timing of development is controlled by two knobs. One controls the rate at which an organism grows. The other controls the rate at which it changes shape over time. Random mutation may end up changing the settings of each knob, thereby speeding up or slowing down the rate at which a species' embryos develop. These kinds of adjustments can alter the entire body of an organism, or individual organs. Gould predicted that with heterochrony, the genes that regulate other genes would hold the key to the evolution of embryos. His prediction has now been borne out.

Junhyong Kim and his fellow Yale biologists compared the timing at which a crucial developmental gene became active in the fruit fly and two close relatives. They found that the gene (for timing) started to make its proteins at different rates in the 3 species led to differences in their anatomy - even though the developmental gene itself is identical in all three species.

And Lastly: Though fishermen will always tell tall tales about the big one that got away, more and more evidence suggests that the "big ones" simply don't exist anymore and Dr. David O. Conover's work suggests why: many fish are evolving smaller body sizes. We are changing their environment by fishing for and selecting the larger. The genes that produce the smaller size are selected. This is natural selection at work now.

One other thing that shows evolution at work today is the fact that some groups of peoples have higher numbers with one recessive gene for sickle cell anemia. They live in areas of the world where malaria is common. People with one copy of the gene live longer than those with none. People with two copies do not survive long. The environment, along with the mosquitoes, are selecting humans with the gene that allows them to live longer and reproduce more children. Both the fish and people are evolving right now at this time.

Answer 2

Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).

• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of 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

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 3

There are, and always will be, many opinions on which is real.

What evolution has going for it is that there is proof that it really happened, placing it outside the realm of mere opinion. This proof is not mere pseudo-science, but empirical evidence that is the foundation for the modern science of Biology.