Some would say that people support creationism because of their faith. Their religion teaches the divine origin of man, and they believe it. That seems to be the crux of the argument by the creationists for creationism. "God did it. I believe it. Case closed."
Some creationists decry the work of scientists who have built and continue to build more and more links in the chain of evolutionary development. There is so much evidence for the theory of evolution. What is there for the creationist to hold up in the light of reason? It can get dicey.
Certainly there is a huge supply of scientific evidence for evolution. Science supports evolution far and away more strongly than it does creation. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for creation. None. Certainly science can't prove that God did not create man. But no one can prove by any testable means that He did. Arguments against evolution do not hold water scientifically. The earth is a very, very old ball of rock, and time can do things to the earth and life on it that are almost beyond the comprehension of men. Creation science is an oxymoron, and is almost a joke to the vast majority of the scientific community. But what of Creationism?
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.
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
People support creationism in spite of the lack of evidence, by creating, in their own minds, reasons for believing in creationism. These ostensible can vary from imagining that only a deity can create the beauty or complexity of life, to attacks on scientific explanations for existence and long-disproved philosophical arguments. They support creationism because they fear that without creationism their belief in God would crumble.
A factual tidbit is a small fact about a subject. Some people have factual tidbits about a wide variety of things.
Creationism can and should be taught in a sociology classroom setting, but not in a science classroom like some people want it to be. The reason for this is that creationism is not a scientific theory or even principle, it's part of cultural mythology.
No one ever does that. *said in a factual tone*
The answer depends on who is doing the censoring and for what reasons. Censorship can promote bias and manipulation of factual events to support an ideal that is not shared by the majority of people.
Creationism comes in two significantly different varieties. Traditional creationism, often known as ‘Young-earth Creationism’ holds that the world was created in just six days, and only a few thousand years ago. Old-earth Creationists accept that science has proven its case, that the world is over four billion years old. They seek to harmonise this with the Bible by looking for innovative ways of interpreting the Book of Genesis, to allow both science and the Bible to be seen as true.Many people now believe the biblical account of creation to be a myth, but 'creationism' is more than a myth. Whether we look at Young-earth Creationism or Old-earth Creationism, it is a quite modern set of beliefs designed to support belief in God as the ultimate creator of the world.
Many people would argue that no one species was on the Earth before another species. These people believe in creationism.
The bible... People who believe the Bible is a word for word, literal expression of history, believe it shows the world is 5000ish years old and was created in 7 days because that is what the bible says so... Evidences suggests the earth is millions of years old The bible actually has 2 creation stories of the world and a lot of non factual data, but many people don't take it literally. They take it as a figurative book with lessons on how we should act and live our lives
There is no credible historical evidence to suggest that George Washington was visited by people from the future. Claims of time travel are generally considered to be fictional and do not have scientific support.
A documentary.
Cases involving claims of the people against the United States
Nonfiction
There are none in existence. You can only find images that people claim to be aliens or UFOs. So far, there has never been any evidence to support their claims.