Do you believe in evolution or creationism and why?

Answer 1

The major reason I believe in creation-science and don't believe in evolution is because I know and have been created by the maker of all things, who has spoken and stated how the universe and everything in it came to be. Secondly, as one would expect if this was an empirically correct view there is not one scientific fact, correctly understood, which contradicts this. Three proven scientific laws point clearly to a creator in a positive way. 1. The Law of Biogenesis - life only comes from life. Science has proven that life cannot and does not arise spontaneously from whatever conditions one cares to imagine. 2 and 3. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a creator, since things decay rather than get more orderly over time (although of course the total discussion is much more complex). Modern Genetics also points to a creator, since no genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code. Information does not arise spontaneously - and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell. Scientific studies also suggest strongly that the earth cannot be anywhere near as old as evolution requires and is in fact 'young.' Why evolution is not the best explanation? Because in order to have evolution, something had to change. And at the beginning there was nothing. So, what did change? If you change nothing, you will get nothing.

Answer From someone who believes BOTH: Darwin has explained pretty well the evolution of species up to a point. However if one follows the path "Species 1" -> "Species 2" -> "Species 3" through the evolution line, it is quite possible to ask "From what did everything begun"? Or even to ask "OK, but why do the evolution rules exist and apply? Who/what put them in motion?". The evolution theory does not have answers to that. There comes into play the theories about the "First cause" and so on. So in that perspective, I believe both theories are true in their perspective.

Answer: Even Evolutionists Have Problems Regarding Long-Age Dating Methods 'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but rather, within the age and memory of man.' Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, 'Secular catastrophism'. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21. 'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth's history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating.'.... 'It is obvious that 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 quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). 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) in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, pp.82 and 84. 'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or to low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.' A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), 'K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979, p.974. 'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.' Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra), 'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9 (1), 1962, p.3. Regarding the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method:

'These results indicate that 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, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p.102. 'One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature.' Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA), 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental vulcanism'. Science, vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p. 1093. The age of the Earth is only relevant to this question, if it is too short to permit evolution, or too long to support Young Earth creationism, which is based on a literal or semi-literal reading of the Bible. And the age of the Earth is entirely irrelevant to Old Earth creationism, since the advocates of this position are quite happy to argue their position in the light of the earth being 4.5 billion years old. The Theory of Evolution requires the Earth to be at least a few million years old. It does not require the world to be 4.5 billion years old. So, even with the unproven assumption that the rates of radioactive decay have altered dramatically over the eons, this is irrelevant to the possibility of evolution having occurred. A literal reading of the Bible requires to world to be around 6 thousand years old. No discussion of rates of radioactive decay can plausibly shoehorn the geological evidence into six thousand years. Even a semi-literal reading of the Bible, supposing for example that one biblical creation day was really one thousand years, makes no material difference. Young Earth creationism can not use scientific data to prove its point. I therefore accept that evolution of life has occurred. The following are some of the scientific arguments used by young earth creationists. Sometimes the arguments do not explicitly point to the Biblical age used by creationists of 6000-10,000 years but they are also much younger than evolutionary ages allow and are a much bigger problem for the theory of evolution than creation. In many cases the data (most of it researched and published by evolutionist scientists) points to an earth or universe which is not even millions of years old.

1. Rapid Disintegration of Comets: means they cannot be 5 billion years old or they wouldn't exist. Around 100,000 years is postulated as a maximum.

2. Insufficient sea-floor sediment: At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found could accumulate in 12 million years. The oceans are alleged to have existed for 3 billion years.

Creationists contend these sediments could have accumulated rapidly at the flood of Noah c. 5000 years ago.

3. Insufficent Sodium Chloride in the sea:Evolutionary estimates for the age of the earth's oceans are 3 billion years. With current rates of deposition, the salt in the sea could have accumulated in 42-62 million years at today's rate and of course much faster in the Noahic flood.

Note: Calculations done for many other elements produce even younger ages.

4. Decay of the magnetic field of the Earth:This is occurring too rapidly to fit the long-age evolutionary paradigm - the total energy stored having decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Creationists have a model explaining this based on sound physics.

5. Tightly bent strata: These stata, thousands of feet thick are tightly bent without cracking. Yet they are meant to have solidified over millions of years and then bent. The creationist explanation is that they formed while still plastic as the entire formation had to be soft when formed to avoid cracking. This would point to the folding having occurred thousands of years and not millions after formation.

6. Fossil Radioactivity: Radiohaloes which have shown evidence of having been squashed indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were formed in a short time-frame - over months, not hundreds of millions of years. This is so since the rings formed by the haloes, which only exist for a short time before they decay were squashed, indicating rapid formation. If the rocks had formed over a long time span the haloes would not have been there.

7. Misplaced Helium: Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this Helium into the atmosphere can be measured. If this has been occurring for 5 billion years there should be much more Helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there when compared to the relevant time scale.

8. Insufficient stone-age skeletons: The 100,000 year stone-age of evolutionary anthropologists should have produced many more skeletons - around 4 billion, many more of which should still be around compared to the few thousand found.

9. Recent Agriculture: The archeological evidence shows the stone age people to be as intelligent as modern man and yet it is claimed they existed for 100,000 years before discovering that plants grow from seeds. Creationists would think that it is more likely that man was without agriculture for a much shorter period immediately after the flood.

10. History too short: Stone-age people built huge monuments, did beautiful cave paintings and kept records of lunar phases. It seems unreasonable that they should wait nearly 100,000 years before beginning to make written historical records around 4-5000 BC. A much shorter Biblical time-scale seems to better fit this evidence.

Source: These points are condensed from an article by creationist Dr. Russel Humphreys, in Creation Ex Nihilo 13 (3): 28-31, June -August 1991.

The footnotes to this article contain the relevant scientific data relating to the points made. This will be posted as a link for those wishing to check the data or inquire further.

These are not the only arguments used by creationists, but are a sample of some.

Other arguments include:

11. Saturn's Rings are aged much less than claimed by evolutionary theory: This is based on relatively recent observations which show a decay rate of the rings which would mean that they would not still exist if the universe were as old as claimed by evolutionary theory. 12. Processes thought to take a long period of time can take a short time given the right conditions: Among the list of such processes includes the following:

Coal and Oil formation. Opal formation. Stalactites and Stalagmites in Limestone and other caves.

Diamonds

General Geologic processes are not always slow and gradual but sometimes catastrophic in nature Some Examples of Rapid Geologic Processes. The long-accepted dogma taught by Charles Lyell that geologic processes always take vast amounts of time is being challenged by recent discoveries in science.

The following are now accepted as having formed catastrophically in a relatively short period of time:

- a major portion of Washington state

- the Snake River Plain of Idaho

- the Altai region of Southern Siberia

- the Black Sea basin

- the upper Mississippi River Valley

- the Hudson River Valley including New York City

- Wyoming's Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone

- Owen's River Gorge in California

- the Great Lakes/S. Lawrence River drainage basin

- the English Channel and Dover Straits (the most recently discovered addition to this list)

Scientists who are not creationists of any kind are now openly talking about catastrophism of a major kind in shaping some of these vast areas. Diamonds, Coal and Opals These have all been demonstrated as not requiring millions of years to form. They can all be formed quite quickly under the right conditions.

Further To The Age Issue:

Evolution has been likened to a salesman who made a loss on every sale and assumed by increasing his volume he could still make a profit. No length of time, whether billions or as little as millions (no scientist who believes in evolution thinks the earth and universe can be that young) can account for a process which shows a net loss when operating. I am here talking about the modern science of genetics which does not at all support the 'uphill' development of organisms but shows an accumulation over time of harmful mutations. In other words science shows that our genes are deteriorating not 'improving'. The changes required by evolution to work are all in the wrong direction.

The 'age of the earth' issue only serves to highlight that the vast ages supposed by evolutionists to be necessary to make it 'work' are in fact illusory, as shown by evolutionists themselves. In any case, regardless of the amount of time involved it is not shown by science to work, but rather science shows the reverse.

Thus there are good reasons not to believe in evolution. Conversely, science shows precisely what is predicted under the creation model. Data consistently comes in much younger than expected and many of the older ages can be explained under the flood model, where undoubtedly a number of geologic processes were much more rapid. Actually, neither Evolution nor Creation has any real scientific proof-- they are both matters of faith (even though evolutionists believe that their is no such thing as faith). Was anyone who is around now on the earth there when it happened? Then you can't say that what you believe is really scientific. The reason they call it, "Missing Link," is because it is still missing-- they still can't find any human-ape bones. However, there are things, such as the amount of dust on the moon and ocean floor sediment that suggest that it could not possibly be millions of years old.

Answer The answer is really quite easy to find. Find the nearest human being to you, someone you can watch closely for a while. Study him or her for a few weeks. Then ask yourself what you believe. If you decide you believe in creation science I take it to mean that you believe God created man. Do you actually believe there could be a "superior being" idiotic enough to create the collection of idiots who populate the human race? Most Christians, for example. We have a God who sent Moses to convey his Ten Commandments. One of those commandments is Do Not Kill. Not, Do Not Kill Unless You have Sufficient Justification..., but simply Do Not Kill. And the God who made that commandment is the very God we say we worship, as we go out there and kill people in our wars. If there is a God, he created evolution, and He's up there pacing in heaven right now, waiting with Godly patience I believe,for the Thankful Day man finally evolves into the lowly status of extinction. Why? Because even the people who pretend to worship Him won't keep His commandments.

Answer None of the evolution process is proven. Also, a dog is still a dog no matter if it's a golden retriever or a wolf.

Answer 2

Evolution is based on fact, supported by numerous archaeological finds and scientific study. It is the best explanation for the world around us.

So-called creation science is based on faith and puts forward no positive arguments to prove its case, merely attempting to undermine the claims of scientists who support evolution. For example, Young-Earth creationists go to considerable lengths to undermine the geological evidence that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The age of the Earth is only relevant to this question if it is too short to permit evolution, or too long to support Young Earth creationism, which is based on a supposedly literal reading of The Bible. And the age of the Earth is entirely irrelevant to Old Earth creationism, since the advocates of this position are quite happy to argue their position in the light of the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Old-Earth creationism is often distilled as 'Intelligent Design', and the advocates of this position are just as strident in attempting to undermine the claims of scientists.

For more information on evolution and creation science, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

Creation. Here's why:

• 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.
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