Is evolution or creation true

Answer 1

• It is easy to find evidence that evolution is accurate. Not so much creationism. Its a theory...but it makes a lot of sense. Many Christians accept evolution and natural selection as fact.

• I believe in Creationism, but that doesn't mean creation hasn't evolved , adapted for weather or changes in food supply etc. These beliefs aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, many of those who believe in Noah's ark accept that evolution subsequent to "the global flood" occurred at a pace substantially faster than most biologists are willing to concede possible.

Answer 2

With advances in the fields of science, it is becoming more and more evident that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is firmly based on facts.

Unlike creation, evolution does not require us to believe, because whether we believe or not, evolution of species is proven to have occurred. We not only have extensive fossil evidence for evolution, including transitional fossils, but we now also have DNA evidence of evolution. DNA even gives approximately the same estimate for the divergence of our ancestors from the ancestors of chimpanzees as does the fossil record. Evolution is still occurring, and can be observed among bacteria because bacteria have such extremely short lifespans that long multigenerational changes are readily observed.

Creation depends on faith and is not supported by empirical evidence, although creationists often refer to the strong anthropic principle (there is also a weak anthropic principle) which, according to one proponent, states, "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history," believing this at least proves the existence of a designer God. They also consider organs such as the human eye are too complex to have evolved. However, biologists point to simpler forms of eyes that do exist, right back to simple patches of light-sensitive skin. Whatever ideas creationists throw up against evolution, scientists have been able to show the falsity of those ideas.

Being proven and provable, evolution is more rationally believable than mere creation.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.)
  
• 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

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

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 5

With advances in the fields of science, it is becoming more and more evident that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is firmly based on facts. Unlike creation, evolution does not require us to believe, because whether we believe or not, evolution of species is proven to have occurred. We not only have extensive fossil evidence for evolution, including transitional fossils, but we now also have DNA evidence of evolution. DNA even gives approximately the same estimate for the divergence of our ancestors from the ancestors of chimpanzees as does the fossil record. Evolution is still occurring, and can be observed among bacteria because bacteria have such extremely short lifespans that long multigenerational changes are readily observed.
Creation depends on faith and is not supported by empirical evidence, although creationists often refer to the strong anthropic principle (there is also a weak anthropic principle) which, according to one proponent, states, "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history," believing this at least proves the existence of a designer God. When this approach fails, they bring up arguments based on misunderstood principles of science, such as the laws of thermodynamics. They also consider organs such as the human eye are too complex to have evolved. However, biologists point to simpler forms of eyes that do exist, right back to simple patches of light-sensitive skin. Whatever ideas creationists throw up against evolution, scientists have been able to show the falsity of those ideas.

Being proven and provable, evolution is more rationally believable than mere creation.