In 2013, with over 150 years of almost continuous scientific research into so many fields have conclusively pointed to the fact that evolution, with a 99% probability rate, did occur. Read any basic scientific journal on the matter, and if you had even the smallest amount of knowledge of biology or physics, you would know evolution is most likely true.
Fossil evidence, the creation of amino acids, bacteria and viruses evolving before our eyes adapting to new environments inside the human body; all of these, and a thousand other examples pointing to evolution prove it to be true and accurate.
Denial of facts in favor of ancient mythology, at that. Evolution is supported by mountains of hard, objective, verifiable evidence and contradicted by none. Creationism has nothing but logical fallacies and ancient mythological texts.
It is also only prevalent in the Third World and, sadly, America. The rest of the educated, developed world got with the program a long time ago.
I agree completely that there is a supreme being because it's backed up by science, that's an argument for a different day, but evolution is also backed up by science. We have proven the half-life of different cells such as Carbon to be over a billion years, which far exceeds the belief that earth is only a several thousand years old. Plus there is compelling evidence of physical change to match the environment the organism is in. So if we have proven (by actually observing and timing) that the half-life of different organisms are billions of years old, how could you say that humanity (which contains those billion year old elements) is only a few thousand years old? Plus I noticed in the other comments for the opposing side that they found "blood samples" in dinosaurs. And he is right, blood does decay over time. But the blood he was referring to was preserved. In Siberia there was a fully formed wooly mammoth found completely preserved, blood, tissue and everything. The reason the animal's blood was still there wasn't because it was recently created, but because it had been mummified and preserved in ice and different types of rock for millions and hundreds of thousands of years.
This link clearly shows the timeline and process of evolution flawlessly:
It is proven scientific fact that evolution occurs. I love this debate as creatonists have no arguments. Some say that micro-evolution is true, while macro is not. This is, of course, absurd. Mirco is Macro over a longer period of time. Anyways by now we should all know that the world isn't 6000 years old. The bible even got the order of events wrong. Light before stars? *Facepalm*
I nottice creationism has only a 2000 year old book to refer to, while evolution has fossils, geologists, geneticists, carbon dating, and so much more. Evolution is conclusions based on evidence. Creationism is drawing a conclusion, and trying to draw facts later on. Evolution is growing strong while creationism is practically on life-support(as it should be). All that's left is to pull the plug!
Anyone knows that taking the same medicine will eventually become ineffective, that is because bacteria in your body evolve to become immune. The reason this happens so quick is because the environmental pressure and the extremely short time it takes for bacteria to reproduce. This is much like other animals, who evolve too slow for us too see since this process takes place over millions of years
There is SO much evidence supporting evidence that it's mind blowing some people still don't believe in it, yet there is one book supporting creationism that was written thousands of years ago when people had little understanding of the world. Plus, there are many gaps in creationism such as how light came before the sun, and how earth seemed to be created as the center of the universe, where it has been proved that it's not.
There is a reason why you learn about the evolution in science class but creationism in religion. One is true and one is... Religion. I am from Sweden and in Swedish the word science is "vetenskap" which comes from the word "veta" which means to know. In contrast you never say "I know in god". This proves that even the strongest believers don't know if god exist while science on the other hand is based on things that we know.
The theory of evolution is based on the scientific method. It is open to debate, and encouraged to falsify based on logical arguments. It's in no way different than asking (hypothese) whether your car won't run because the gas tank is empty (rejecting the null hypotheses). It's a sliding scale to more "scientific" questions, like how can we determine how old an object is. Since we don't need extraterrestrial arguments for simple problems, where on this scale does the need for weirdness pop up to answer more serious scientific questions? Even more importantly, if evolution is not true, why would creationism suddenly be true? There is no dichotomy since creationism is just one of an infinite number of childlike world views including a goblin induced universe. Creationism is by definition not scientific because it's truth is based on a book (fallacy of authority?), or any other well known fallacy as categorized by Aristotle a long time ago. For every argument pro creationism you should ask yourself "why not goblin?". Rejecting "science" (I think what is meant by this is actually the scientific method) is putting a need for non-logical arguments arbitrarily somewhere on the scale from simple problems to more serious problems, since I'm sure you don't include any Gods into your search for why your motor doesn't start. Maybe a little zen though.
I cannot understand how this can even be a debate at this point. Only the uneducated, religiously or politically motivated are still maintaining that creationism is a viable "theory". In doing so, they are even ignoring the scientific meaning of the word 'theory" and using the word the way people do in common use to create confusion for those who do not know the scientific meaning of the word. The real issue here is that Christians feel compelled to defend the Bible.
The biggest problems with Evolution is Information Theory and Entropy:
Information Theory basically comes down to the fact that information is never, I want to emphasize NEVER, created randomly. The old adage that if you stick enough monkies in a room with enough typewriters and you will eventually get Shakespeare was actually tried. I'll give you a hint, no Shakespeare and lots of monkey poop.
DNA is huge amounts of information. A human's DNA contains about 750 MB of information. That is ~750,000,000 different pairs of values that are all vital to your body's construction. This is simply beyond the capacity for random chance to get right.
Entropy is the second problem with Evolution. Entropy generally refers to the reduction of the amount of order in the universe as a whole. However, simply because the universe is loosing order as a whole, that doesn't necessarily mean that every area in the universe is also loosing order. It is somewhat conceivable that order is being generated in some locations of the universe while chaos is taking over in others. For instance, an Air Conditioner creates order when it cools the room it's pointed into, however, it creates more chaos when it expels the hot air outdoors. The problem is that the NET effect is a loss of order. More heat is produced than cold. If this is always the case, then it is unlikely that enough order would be randomly generated on a single planet to produce rational thinking human beings capable of contemplating whether or not they came into existence through evolution or creationism.
Hi my name is Sahaam,and I believe that creationism is true. Evolution Archaeologists have found Dinosaur bones with blood cells still in them which suggests that the world is young and the Dinosaurs did not live for millions of years. Blood cells only last for 2000 years. This supports creationism.
Ost people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, and neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Although it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.
Read the full article here http://harunyahya.Com/en/Books/974/the-evolution-deceit
If God did not exist, and everything was random, the perfect circumstance on which Earth stands would be too flawless to natural occur. The right star size, the perfectly shaped moon at the right distance to make everything work... The perfect amount of elements and the perfect conditions in Earth's ecosystem, ranging from as far as every law of physics, every mixture and compound, every connection and natural occurrence built so tightly together for life to exist... It's too perfect. Evolution is even more illogical...
For the Universe to exist with the right everything, and Earth to have the right combination of billions of different laws and circumstances that allow everything to work perfectly, is simply too unrealistic.
Evolution working the way they say it did is like a tornado going into the right landfill, staying there for 4 billion years, and then producing millions of unique, fully functioning, perfect Super Computers human's won't be able to create for another hundred years... Only more unrealistic, because animals require two genders to reproduce, and Evolution would have had to be sentient to make that scenario work out...
It's just a lot more logical to believe in a God than believe in the illogical odds that the Universe and Evolution worked this well.
Is it that tough to accept that God made everything, and that it evolved into what it is now? However, I do NOT believe we came from Apes or fish. If we evolved from any other animal, it probably wouldn't still be around today, and it's unlikely that they just stopped. If you think that Apes are around because they're 'still evolving', then why don't we have any hybrid Ape-Humans who are very confused about what the hell they are.
It is far more likely that we simply evolved from different types of humans. That's why cavemen were believed to have a different structure to us now, but the changes were only minor (such as jaw size). We eventually became homosapiens and then the humans we are now. Why the hell would we have started as fish?!?!?!?!!!!