0
Creation
Whether you believe God created the world or the universe is the result of the Big Bang, ask questions here about the creation of the beautiful and wondrous earth we live on.
2,055 Questions
What is the best argument against evolution?
There are several arguments used against evolution; here are a few. Note that some of the material on this page is not accepted as factual by most scientists.
Opinion
There are none. There have been no viable, testable scientific alternatives to the Theory of Evolution suggested so far.
Opinion
The best argument against evolution is the one that states that if we all evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here. However that is only able to be stated by somebody who knows nothing about evolution because evolution does not state that we came from monkeys, merely that humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.
One Answer
One set of arguments is:
1. There are no valid "missing links" either still extant or in the fossil record.
2. Genetically, a bacterium is more similar to a horse than to yeast (this is contrary to the theory of evolution).
3. Evolutionists believe it must have taken millions of years for layers of strata to form but they can also be caused by catastrophes (a huge amount of stratum was laid down at Mt. St. Helen in just five hours).
4. In the Cambrian strata (where evolutionist say only basic life forms existed) they found fossils of very complex animals.
5. Mutation never adds information to the genetic code, only subtracts from it.
6. Darwin, the founder of evolution himself, acknowledged that there were several "grave" problems with his new theory.
7. Natural selection prevents evolution from happening because the intermediate species would be unfit to survive.
8. Some mechanisms (such as the human eye) are irreducibly complex (meaning that one part could not exist without the other).
(Note: when "evolution" is mentioned it refers to macro evolution (evolving from one species to another) not micro evolution (fluctuation within species).
Another Answer:
Some say that that there is such a wide variety of animals and it is so unlikely for them to exist - there are trillions of cells in a human, and it is really unlikely for that to have happened without an intelligent creator.
What does the genesis creation story teach us about the environment?
In the Genesis creation account mankind is appointed as a "caretaker" over the creation of God. It is clear that this involves what scholars call the "dominion mandate" in that man has control and authority over the environment to use it as he sees fit. Obviously if he exploits the environment over which he has been entrusted dominion, to the point of damage he is not exercising responsible stewardship.
Since the environment is God's creation and not man's, man is not free to use it in ways that cause harm either to the environment or that hampers the right of others to live in an environment that is healthy.
The creation account sums up the whole creation, which God describes in Genesis 1:31 as "very good". We know today a great deal more today than then about what this means - the amazing diversity and complexity in both the environment as a whole and in individual organisms, body systems, interactions, information content etc. Belief in an orderly creation has been shown to stimulate and encourage scientific inquiry, as well as technological advancement -all of which have led to knowledge which enables better care for the environment.
What is an example of evolution vs creationism?
Evolution believes that life was formed from nutrients at the bottom of oceans around volcanic pillars a few billion years ago, then evolved into the creatures we are today over billion of years.
What is the link between evolution and the creation-story?
One could say that evolution is older than the creation story, but that the creation story is older than the Theory of Evolution. The ancients had no understanding of evolution and simply assumed that God created all living creatures just as we see them now.
According to creationism how old is the earth?
According to creationism, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and is usually found to be around 6,000 years old. This results from an interpretation of Biblical genealogies.
Forms of evidence for how early life evolved?
Modern man evolved a long time ago. There has never been a time in all the years that man has been upon the earth that has, to him, has not been a modern time. From the time of Adam to the present day there have been thousands of modern times. If there is one aspect of the evolvment of mankind it is through knowledge. Man began life as a man and not some ameba crawling out of the sea. Science will never be able to proove that man was nothing less than a man when the earth was first inhabited.
One thought:
The 'earth' no.
The 'world' yes.(2 Peter 3:5+6)
That is, the Satanic world of wicked mankind ON the earth, in Noah's day (John 17:14/Genesis 7:23/2 Corinthians 4:4). This stands as a warning to us. Not that the 'planet earth' will be destroyed, but wicked mankind ON the earth will, as in Noah's day(Matthew 24:37-39/2 Peter 3:7/John 15:18)(Psalm 78:69/Psalm 104:5/Psalm 119:90/Ecclesiastes 1:4).
Describe the process of co-evolution in humans and H pylori?
Helicobacter Pylori, the main cause of gastric cancer, has evolved differently in separate peoples, slightly modulating disease risk. This is usually used as part of a persons risk assessment for cancer, IE; African H. Pylori ancestry was relatively benign in humans of African ancestry but was was found to cause more harm in individuals with substantial Amerindian ancestry, etc.
Species drift to form a new species?
I think you mean genetic drift.
Genetic drift is not strong enough in itself to cause speciation generally. Genetic drift is merely a sampling error in allele frequency change due to random events.
What is the status of Darwins theory today?
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is widely accepted in the scientific community and forms the foundation of modern biology. It is supported by abundant evidence from various fields such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. While some aspects of the theory have been refined and expanded upon over time, its core principles remain a fundamental part of our understanding of how life has diversified on Earth.
No arguments; evidence.
1. The biochemical and genetic relatedness of all organisms on earth.
2. Biogeography. The distribution of organisms best explained by evolution.
3. Homology. The bones in your arm match almost bone for bone the bones in your dogs forelimb. ( save for structural modifications )
4. The age of the earth and the processes that took place over deep time. Well supported from many disiplines.
Why do scientists study proteins to find evidence for evolution?
Scientists study proteins to find evidence for evolution because proteins are essential molecules that carry out many functions in living organisms. By comparing the sequences of proteins across different species, scientists can uncover similarities and differences that provide clues about how different species are related and have evolved over time. This can help shed light on the evolutionary history and relationships between species.
What is a clever title for evolution v. creationism persuasive essay. I am for evolution?
Richard Dawkins battles the creationism and evolution landscape with many a lengthy book on the subjects or, presumably, clever article. The titles of his books are quite good, such as Climbing Mount Improbable or The Selfish Gene or River out of Eden or The Ancestor's Tale. I have no idea of any titles for you (obviously you can't use Dawkins' titles). I did once consider the title The Intelligent Design of Education, for an article on whether Intelligent Design was worthy to be taught alongside or instead of evolution in classes. The title was supposed to imply the 'intelligent design' of education and educational decrees in cases where they excluded such things as Intelligent Design and creationism. Of course, 'clever' titles on this topic are likely to amuse biologists and infuriate fundamentalists. On April the 1st of one year (probably a complete April Fool), it appeared that Scientific American (I think it was that) wrote an editorial saying things like we scientists should discard observation and experiment and embrace faith and creationism. One wonders how that went down. Still, as I say, a complete April Fool.
For your title, you can use plays on words, which are always clever. I sometimes rather like alliteration. Test your language. Look at the context and final product of your essay. Flip words this way and that. As I say, try puns and plays on words.
In a case where you defy or deny evolution, The Creation of Evolution could be the start of a title, followed by perhaps a derogatory ending that implies it incorrect or idiotic.
In the case in which you find holes in and dismiss creationism, try The Evolution of Creation, perhaps implying that creation is a made-up story that is imagined by creatures that are simply the product of evolution.
Oh well, good luck with your persuasive essay. Gather your facts well and good luck with the title.
Is Darwin's evolution or biblical creation true?
Darwin's theory of evolution is the theory that modern lifeforms have a common ancestry, and that they evolved from their ancestral forms through the mechanisms of reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
While all the scientific data so far supports evolutionary theory as an accurate model, at least in its fundamental theses, and while most all of the world's scientists accept evolutionary theory as fundamentally accurate, many people still object to it based on religious grounds.
In the end, everybody will make their own determination.
Most religions have holy books that have different viewpoints and these have accounts which are different from each other. Something to keep in mind.
All evidence would seem to support evolutionary theory, while there is no testable model - and therefore no evidence - for the accuracy of the notion of creation.
How was the earth created according to evolution?
Evolution is not concerned with the creation of the earth. It explains how modern species developed from more primitive species of the past.
Cosmology explains how the earth was formed. At some stage, a supernova star exploded in the neighbourhood of our sun - within a few million light years from here. Supernovas are formed as giant stars die and are not entirely uncommon. And giant stars, because of their far greater mass, are able to convert their hydrogen into heavy elements before finally dying. Conversion of hydrogen into heavy elements is also well known to nuclear physicists. So, our supernova exploded and sent an enormous amount of heavy elements out into empty space. A very small part of this was captured in orbit around our sun, where it eventually concentrated into the various planets and other bodies that orbit the sun. One of these was, of course, the earth.
What evidence is there for creationism and the theory of evolution?
The evidence for creationism is in the Bible alone. Needless to say, a story written more than two thousand years ago is of limited value as evidence, even if millions believe it. It is such slender evidence that even creationists can not agree on what the story means, splitting into various camps, such as 'Old-Earth Creationism' and 'Young-Earth Creationism'. Apart from the Bible, creationists also fall back on speculation, philosophical arguments and pseudo-science.
The evidence for evolution is extensive, in spite of pseudo-scientific attempts to deny it:
- The fossil evidence, which now includes extensive evidence of transitional species
- The fact that fossils are consistently found in just the right layers in what is known as the geological column, except where there is clear evidence of geological disturbance
- The geographic distribution of fossils such that we never find related species anywhere that is inconsistent with evolution
- DNA evidence, that enables scientists to map the divergence of species from parent species
There is also the fact that almost all qualified scientists believe that the Theory of Evolution is a good explanation for the evolution of species. Claims about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and increasing entropy requiring there to have been a Creator simply demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. Similar comments can be made about pseudo-scientific claims that radio-isotope dating methods are extraordinarily unreliable, or that there is too little salt in the sea or too little helium in the atmosphere. A very brief summary of the problems with these claims:
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. Species, and particularly individuals within a species, are not closed systems.
- Radio-isotope dating methods are self-confirming, because different radio-isotopes can be used to arrive at approximately the same age for a specimen.
- The rate at which salt is deposited in the sea by rainwater runoff has increased with increasing porosity of land surfaces. In the first period, before about three billion years ago, the land surface consisted largely of hard, igneous rock, from which little salt leached. Now that porous soils and secondary rocks cover much of the earth's land surface, salt leaching is naturally greater. Young-Earth Creationist claims assume that scientists believe this rate has never altered. In addition to the increase in salt leaching, land upheavals have returned some salt from the seas back on to the land.
- Helium is a light element that gradually escapes from the upper atmosphere into outer space. Radioactivity replenishes the helium in the atmosphere, but this is balanced by atmospheric losses.
Is earth a prison for mankind until the end of days?
I believe it is & created specifically for this purpose.
Its the only planet in the universe with an atmosphere that can sustain us. A mere pinprick in the carpet of space.. Travelling round our sun at exactly the right distance. If we any closer?, we would burn. Any further away? we would freeze..
Totally Perfect!.. or is it?.
If you are religious and believe in God or Supreme Being, then you may also believe in reincarnation? so if man done enough to be accepted into heaven, there`s a good chance be incarnated until he does.. I believe this opportunity is time limited though and this opportunity will very soon come to an end. The fact we are all still here means, we havent done enough to be accepted back into heaven.
If you look up from earth? you see heaven so, where is hell?
It cant be down below because that would suggest it must be earth.. So? If we haven`t done enough to be accepted back into heaven by the end of days, hell may well be on earth..
How many creationists are there in the world?
It is difficult to estimate the exact number of creationists in the world as beliefs vary across different religions and individuals. Creationism is predominantly found among religious groups that adhere to literal interpretations of their religious texts, such as the Bible or Quran, and reject the theory of evolution. Studies suggest that a significant portion of the global population holds creationist beliefs to varying degrees.
What are the mechanism evolution called?
The mechanisms of evolution are called natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutation. These mechanisms work together to drive changes in populations over time, leading to the diversity of life we see today.
What theory proposes that evolution occurs steadily in tiny changes over long periods of time?
The theory that proposes evolution occurs steadily in tiny changes over long periods of time is gradualism. This idea suggests that species evolve slowly and continuously through small, incremental changes rather than through sudden, dramatic shifts.
DNA provides greater stability and accuracy in storing genetic information compared to RNA. This makes DNA less prone to errors and mutations, allowing for more efficient replication and inheritance of genetic material. This likely led to the switch to DNA-based genetic systems during evolution on Earth.
How does the second creation story agree with modern scientific study?
It is hard to see any connection between either biblical creation story and modern scientific knowledge. The idea that God created a male person long before he created a female of the same species is scientifically absurd. In Genesis chapter 2, God created Adam then the beasts of the field, yet scientists know that humans were among the last creatures to evolve. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life have no scientific explanation, although they serve a literary purpose as allegories.
How does evolution involve creationism?
Evolution does NOT involve creationism.
- Evolution is a testable and therefore provable explanation as to how the diversity of life on earth has happened.
- Creationism is a religious viewpoint and therefore a mater of faith.
Answer
I agree with the above. Evolution does NOT involve Creationism. Evolution is a branch of biological science and thus rejects "supernatural" claims such as those of Creationism, does not need to consider them. Creationism, often hanging on Genesis, the first book of the Bible, predates scientific inquiry and the scientific method and so is thus rejected by science and thus evolutionary science. In the public spotlight, the so-called Evolution-Creation "controversy" and all the on-stage arguments and debates might make it seem as though Evolution and Creationism (and Intelligent Design) have a lot to do with one another, but I doubt Creationism gets much mention at all in scientific laboratories and scientific conferences (it can't because it hasn't got anything to say about the real world.)
Why is ther little evidence for the evolution of early life forms?
Because of the lack of hard parts. Geological upheaval (this affects all fossils to a certain degree ). To name two reasons that are supported by the evidence. It also hinges on what you mean as " little. " The evidence, by way of analogy, would convict a saint of murder. It is strong enough for that and strong enough to support evolutionary theory
