An honest look at the evidence in the world around us tells us that everything could not have been created by nothing. It is also preposterous to imagine all the current life forms arising form nothing at all. I have yet to hear an evolutionist explain to me how the first cell came about. However, the evidence we do see clearly tells me that the world is thousands, not millions of years old, and was made by an intelligent being.
Makes more sense to me. Evolution is a racist ideology
Evolution theory is stupid and not smart. God created earth. I don't understand how atheist minds work because if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys. Because apparently chickens came from dinosaurs and their aren't any dinosaurs walking around.
it is true it is in many document dont be dumb
The bible never specified that God could not change his creation. There is always room for poking and prodding that God may have partaken in. However, I do not believe that humans derived from monkeys or apes. There are many similarities and yes 99% of our genes may be similar, but again, God has a plan and who knows, maybe his plan was to create animals, some close to what humans look and act like.
Based on the incoherent gibberish spouted by some on the evolutionists side of this discussion, I might be brought to believe that they did evolve from apes, but have not completed the transition to thinking human yet. The only possible, logical, reasonable explanation for the existence of all the laws, systems, functions, and absolute exactness of the universe is a thinking, intelligent, wise, reasonable, powerful source for the order. Order does not come from random chaos.
There are people who believe that it is likely that we either evolved from monkeys/apes or fish. Which is the truth? I have no idea. Believing in a God does not mean the negation of science. Just as science cannot come up with a coherent evidence for everything, the same can be said of religion. Just because we cannot prove something does not mean it is not real, it just means our minds have not evolved enough to see the truth. This applies for science and religion. The one goal for humans is to reach the divine and be forever in God's grace. Jesus became human/flesh so that we may be divine/spirit. This in itself can almost be taken as a form of evolution. God leaves clues into human life in everything, we just have to look for them.
People seem to think that the Bible is untrue, yet is has been proven true multiple times, unlike evolution, which is only a theory.
I have always believed this and it makes way more since
i just dont believe in evolution:/
Evolution still has no evidence to how the first bacteria formed on the Earth, therefore leaving us no evidence to how the chain began
How can we be made from Monkeys. That is impossible unless, GOD CREATED OUR ANSECTORS
Considering we recently found the fish species we were supposedly descended from and their skeletal structure hasn't changed at all....
With Darwin say that everything came from a premordial ooze is bull. Order can not be made from Chaos if you see a clean side walk an o windy day and then come back and see a pyrimid the who made it definitely not the wind.
Guys... Think about symbiotic relationships, specifically mutualism. How would those have evolved without one or both dying off? And more importantly, why did they evolve into a state where they are dependent on another species? That, and the fact that Earth itself in many ways, (including but not limited to it's general beauty, the very specific way our atmosphere is constructed to serve as a shield, the complex ecosystems that exist, the fact that we have Jupiter dragging planet-shattering rocks away from hitting us, the fact that we are the perfect distance from the sun, and much more...) defies unbeatable odds to end up the way it is now, I don't have enough faith to believe that everything here is chance.
if someone say that's the origin of man is monkey, say to him those are your ancestors not mine
The amounts of faith evolutionists have is incredible. I can't have such gigantig faith and rather go for creation :p /friendlytaunt
If scientists say we evolved from monkeys and apes shouldn't all the monkeys and apes evolve by now and become humans. If you go into a zoo and see a monkey I'm a 100% sure that it won't just turn into a human. I believe that humans were created by God and God alone. Evolution doesn't make any sense. There are way too much errors with that theory and I strongly believe that it is wrong. Humans and the entire universe was created by God and God alone.
There is evidence all around that supports creationalism
not everything needs an explanation.
As “evidence” to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a “circle of information,” with each document pointing to the next source as their “proof.” In college, we cynically called this procedure the “tower of babble.” (Yes, “babble” is the right word—this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends! Unfortunately (and we really do mean unfortunately) we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. (We will discuss the scientific facts later.) The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin’s theoretical writings. If you think we are exaggerating, examine the documentation yourself. By the way, the web contains many online versions of Darwin’s book. Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution? By the way, we realize that many of the writings that support the Bible’s creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. We are trying to break out of that behavior pattern. We are not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bible’s creation account instead. We propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given “equal time,” with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. If you want to find someone who can compose the biblical side, write us:address So, How Do I Get to the Facts? If you like reading books, a good one on this topic is The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. Another good book is Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry. There is one advantage to a book—you can carry it around more easily than your computer, and you do not need an Internet connection, either! Both of these books qualify as “best sellers.” In the following section, we will apply the scientific method to the known, scientific facts relevant to the origins of our world (and the plants and animals on it). For those who are not familiar with the “scientific method,” it states the proper way to test and answer questions scientifically. It has four steps: State the question. Form a hypothesis (educated guess of the answer to the question). Do experiments (to test whether the hypothesis is right or not). Interpret the data (results) and draw conclusions. For the purpose of this page, the scientific method applies as follows: The question: “Where did life (and people) come from?” The two hypotheses: The “creation model” as written in the Bible tells us how we got here. The “evolution model” using abiogenesis combined with macroevolution tells us how we got here. The experiments: Various tests and discoveries by paleontologists, biologists, geologists, and other scientists. The data (results): Listed under “Scientific Facts” in the table below. We draw conclusions and mark the hypothesis that fits the data best with a red dot. There are some cases where both hypotheses fit the facts. In those cases, we gave both models a red dot. To see the reasoning behind any evaluation, click on the topic or the red dot and it will “jump” you to the explanation. Use your browser’s back button to return to approximately where you were before the “jump.” Scientific Facts Compared to the Bible’s Creation Account and the Theory of Evolution Scientific Fact Creation Model Evolution Model Scientists developed ways to measure the universe (and therefore its age). red ball red ball Scientists have found a large number of fossils. red ball The earth’s surface is deposited in layers. red ball red ball The layers of the earth’s surface contain different fossils. red ball red ball Many fossils have been discovered that span many geologic layers. red ball Large groups of fossils are often found together. These “graveyards” contain a wide variety of animal remains. red ball Scientists have successfully arranged groups of animals into a “tree of life” (phylogenetic tree). red ball Scientists have discovered transitional forms (missing links). red ball Many animals appeared suddenly at the start of the “Cambrian Period,” even though only a few multicellular fossils appear in “earlier” rock layers. red ball Scientists discovered “living fossils” like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for “millions of years.” red ball Scientists discovered “modern men” in Pliocene deposits. red ball
Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form, all of the matter we see in the universe has always been here, right? Where did it come from? Although the Big Bang is now more a discredited theory (it goes against all laws of physics), there's got to be a way that that matter came into existence. Literally the only plausible solution to this problem is the Creation account in Genesis, where an Almighty God created everything ex nihilo--out of nothing.
A belief in evolution is no different than believing that randomly changing lines of code in your computers operating system will make it run better. Ain't gonna happen.
That means that you believe that a meteor crashed down and made the earth we live on today. Yes we have similar traits to monkey / apes but we are made by gods image.
Evolution is psuedoscience.
The Evolution depicted IS FALSE and always HAS been. I'm truly sorry, people, you've been DUPED by people using big words. Science (again) Never CREATED a single living breathing LIFE, which IS what every creature, that walks, crawls, swims, flies, eats, poops, And reproduces by egg. I know, but, but, but. Look let's do this the way that really actually counts okay? Put the created living, breathing, walking, crawling, or flying, pooping, eating, reproducing by egg LIFE that Evolutionary experiments REALLY DID CREATE. Right here for all of us to go see:________________________. Yes I know you can't put anything , because they NEVER created life itself, no reproducing animal that CREATED offspring, babies, children. Bacteria, microbes that's it. Nothing that ACTUALLY evolved into anything that reproduces by egg, WHICH everyone knows IS EACTLY HOW all life is reproduced in nature by all real living breathing animals ... egg. Hey in Scientist defense, YOU allowed yourself to be hoodwinked, they omitted, the truth, BUT, rather than being regaled by their use of big words, you could have easily said .... yeah, yeah, yeah, show me the critter you created that evolved into REAL LIFE, And show me its FIRST baby? They of course, would have been silent, and YOU could have announced to the World, they lied! Course that wouldn't do you any good, cause I've tried, EVERYBODY is completely fooled by science use of big words that they simply CAN'T hear you. Sorry to be the one to break it too you, BUT, that DOES open the opportunity for you to get your head out of the clouds and SEEK God for REAL. God WILL forgive you for being ignorant, we were ALL taken in by Science at one point in our life, till we found out that God was on the up and up, and offered to give us eternal Life FREE, forgive us, help us, teach us .... the whole Shabang. Gods really great, don't be unintelligent guys, God is the real deal, but Time is growing short. So consider the realities of your life? Your eternities is only a heartbeat away! - A car crash - A stray bullet - An unexpected stroke - You have an appointment and you are going to die on time! - No accidents in Gods kingdom - Where will you find yourself? - How sure are you? - What is the basis of your conviction? Your right to CHOOSE ends upon your death. I KNOW. Can you truly say the same? The responsibility is yours, as is its consequence. People want to make it someone else's job to "prove" Gods existence too them. Wrong my friend I have no such requirement. Mine is to tell you as is required in Ezekiel 3:18-19 18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. You have been so warned. Seek Him while you are still able..... sup to you.
LOL Monotheists vs Atheist. Yet again.
The hypothesis of Evolution is a recent development in human history that has been invented to avoid accepting the truth of God's Word.
You see, I am very skeptical about things. I Am Christian and I do support creationism. Even though it is unbelievable, it has a lot more evidence to support it. "The Big Bang Theory" is completely fake in my opinion. How does nothing make something? And if is just a "Theory" why is it being taught in universities? Go search up evidence for creationism, you will find a lot.
Personally, they both make sense. If God's original humans resembled apes, it's plausible they could have evolved as the theory states. I have yet to come across or think up a theory on how the Big Bang was actually generated.
There is no science that supports the first life on earth. It can't be repeated in a lab.
Actually, they both are correct. I'm you look to the biblical version of the creation of the universe and compare it to how we predicted the universe and life began, you will find that it happens in the same order. Understand that a million years for us would be a day for god. After all, our days are made through the sun, god and man both do not look to the sun to measure days and time. Let there be light - the big bang. Seas and sky - this is when water formed on earth. Sun moon stars - by this time the light of the stars would reach earth and the sun and the moon would have formed and be made visible. Land plants and trees - by this time dry land would have formed, plants would have started growing and bacteria and microscopic organisms would appear on earth(it isn't mentioned in the bible because they are tiny and wouldn't be considered as life back then) . Creatures of the sea - the microscopic organisms evolve and grow bigger with more complex features, eventually becoming fish, whales, snails, etc. Animals (man) - by this time, fish crawled out of the sea and through evolution became what we call, animals. God rests - after that, no more new species, just the evolution of old ones. Creationism proves evolutionism, however, evolutionism alone is not real. And if anyone is wondering, no I am not an adult, I am a 13-year-old catholic who is a huge science geek. Thank you ;)
There are just to many gaps in the argument given for evolution.
Since neither can be physically proven due to the fact that they concern past events, we must look at what is and determine whether creationism or evolutionary theory is easier to believe. Let’s look at DNA. It is like a book or a code. Now, if you are going to tell me that such a highly sophisticated, complex piece of information came about by spontaneous, random ecolutionary processes, you must have a lot if faith in chance. In fact, I would say that it is even easier to believe that the universe was created. After all, we see things that are created everyday, such as computers and cars. However, I have never seen a pile of miscellaneous junk put spontaneously put itself together into a functioning machine. With that said, I must vote for creationism.
Here's the thing... in the Bible it says that the world was created in seven days... but does it ever specify how long a day is? Many people assume that when it says day it means 24 hours but how are we to know? Because it is never stated, each day could have been BILLIONS of years! Also, I believe in the Bible, I believe every word was written for people from the mouths of prophets but I also believe in evolution. It is scientifically proven (by Darwin and others) that evolution occurs and is constantly occurring with species as environments change. There is no reason that people can only believe in one or the other. Often times if you dig deep enough you will find that science and true religion go hand in hand.
Eh, anything's more believable than a giant being in the sky. The Bible itself is a contradictory, homophobic, sexist piece of drug-induced crap.
Why are there so many people who think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally? The Creation story is a poem which contains theological truths like God creating the Universe, but the author didn't know how it literally happened. The Bible is infallible, but you have to take the genre into consideration. The Creation story wasn't meant to be scientific because science didn't even exist, so admitting that evolution is true doesn't mean denying the Bible's infallibility.
I believe in deistic evolution. God created the laws of nature, set everything in motion, and let the universe follow its course.
we have to think realistic here we evoled
Everything on earth has adapted to how the environment over millions of years. Also, god isn't real so.
While this is a dividing issue on origins (especially in the U.S.) we must define our terms and see which may be supported by science. Evolution can simply mean a gradual change over time. This is an obvious scientific truth. Creationism can simply mean that a creator created the universe or a specific aspect of it (in terms relating to science). However, it is largely more specifically seen as young-earth creationism (God created earth, universe, and life 6000-10000 years ago), while Evolution is seen as Darwinian theory of origin of species through natural selection (Life gradually evolved over a long period of time from a single life form and became the diverse life we see today. With these, it becomes quite clear which is more practical and supportable, Darwin's theory of evolution. Modern mainstream academic research has been affirming many predictions made. It is now accepted without question by the scientific community. Creationism always had and always will be based on a religious interpretation of a text written long before the age of science. Its claims are not scientifically feasible, just religion that lacks empirical support for its claims. It then becomes clear what we must accept in light of critical thinking. This doesn't mean you must doubt your religion or accept Darwinian evolution unquestionably, it just means we must be open minded and critical towards ideas. Darwinian evolution does much better under this than creationism.
It's just fact
Evolution has quantifiable evidence that can be analysed and help prove its truth. These would include procedures such as radiometric dating and osteology. While creationism cant be disproved, it is as valid as the faith that is had in the religion. It is as valid as any other guess with its only proof being reference to religious texts.
Its factual not theoretical.
It is more logical and has scientific evidence to back it up.
Evolution is actually based on something that has already been proven
There is so much evidence showing that evolution not only happened in the past, but is occuring presently. The common mistake on this topic is the mixing of the topics of evolution, which is the progression of organisms, and abiogenisis, which is the very beginning of life.
As many would claim "all this could not have come from nothing." And they are right, it didn't. We have no idea where the building blocks of the universe came from. There mountains of evidence pointing to evolution and on the other side of that argument are stone age religious books and conspiracy theories which are incredibly flawed to begin with. Claiming evolution doesn't exist because the bible says otherwise is like claiming the earth is flat because the bible says so, it clearly contradicts all of science yet people ignore it because of belief.
Evolution has much more of a logical explanation than creation. We slowly evolved from apes. There are many reasons why this is true. But with evolution, did god just zap Adam and Eve down to earth, and it all came from there? Didn't Adam and Eve have boys? They would have to have sex with Eve to keep the human race alive. Isn't incest against the word of "God?" The bible and Christianity confuse me anyway. That's why i'm an athiest.
Occam's Razor: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Generally speaking there are fewer assumptions to be made with the theory of evolution.
Evolution is happening right now underneath our noses. To deny evolution is to deny antibiotic resistance. Everything evolves, and species evolve over a long time. The DNA evidence is overwhelming. Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution, but there are multiple hypotheses explaining how it could happen. To just say that God did it raises more questions than it answers. Occam's Razor suggests that we should therefore believe the explanation based on observable evidence.
It's... the only one of the two choices based on reality.
There is actual evidence supporting evolution, but creationism has an old book that is a horrible representation of the human race.
Well just look at evidence and plain common sense
So far there is 0 sustainable proof for creationism or any religion, yet evolution has been proven time and time again.
No one knows where we came from or where we are going. There is no proof of anyone from any religion that "they" are the creator.
i am a christian, i believe in god and in his power. but evolution has been nearly entirely proven throughout history. it is clear to me and should be clear to others that natural selection and species evolution occur and that humans came about by these processes. however, i believe god had a part in this process and that he could have poked and prodded at evolving species and guided science. i cannot believe that people are saying that evolution is only a theory, but that the bible has been entirely proven. i believe in the bible and god, again, but i cannot think of a single way that creationism has been proven with tangible, concrete, scientific and historical evidence
Evolution has vast amounts of evidence to support the claim. Creationism is based upon a religion which has little to no evidence and is dependent upon geographical location.
I'm a Christian, and I was always confused about this. But seeing that the Bible tells me that there's some giant being in the sky that forgot about dinosaurs and is watching us poop, I'm not buying it.
Let's be realistic here. We have tangible evidence of evolution, which kind of solidifies it as fact. Biblical Creationism does not come along with tangible evidence of anything and is therefore only based on belief that is most likely untrue.
There is literally no scientific evidence to back up the theory of creation, while there has been evidence found for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I totally respect everyone's beliefs and religion, but still think that science is more probable.
Discounting the 'word of god' and the writings in the bible (because they were written by man and open to interpretation) the question I would pose is this... What EVIDENCE do creationists have that there is a god/divine being? You can't say 'because there are gaps in evolutionists knowledge that it is evidence for creationism' because that is intellectually incompetent. I would go so far as to say that if you believe in God do you believe in the tooth fairy or the flying horse? If you don't then why not? If you do then where is the evidence? Because I don't see the evidence for any of those three.
There is overwhelming evidence for evolution found in DNA, Fossils, physical traits and distribution of animals. It explains a great deal of what we can observe today, such as animal behaviors, similarities between species and how bacteria resist vaccines. On the contrary, there is no evidence for creationism. Different faiths have different creation myths, and none of them fit in with out scientific understanding of the universe.
Believe a 2017 year old book or in modern science. Yeah I think we know a lot more then them old boys.
Its just more complex and answers more questions than the belief that we were created by an outside being.
There is absolutely no possible way a fucking man in the sky created everything. Creationism is absolute bullshit and is hateful to other people whom either don't follow it/believe it or don't fit the standards of it.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. "Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991]. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances. 3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor. 4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. 5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory. 6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. 7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. 8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. 9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials. 10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years. 11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved. 12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment. 13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution. 14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures. Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence. 15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems. Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all. Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life. Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally. "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?) Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain. Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas. Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
Evolution is the only logical answer and is the only answer with evidence to back it up. The bible was never proof of anything other than the fact that people have known to read and write for quite some time.
To deny that we are animals is denying science
I'm a Christian and yet reading some of the creationist answers still makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I believe in the scientific method and evolution is a sound theory. I also believe that God created the universe in the beginning and caused the big bang, and had a plan of events that was eventually followed to us.
I do believe in religion and that their is a higher power, but you can't argue with science, and science can explain mostly everything.
I'm Protestant, and yet I still believe in evolution, kind of both in a way. God is real for me, truly real among the universe, but Darwin's theory of evolution explains so much about our race. We began as algae, small little creatures growing on a developing Earth being protected by the Moon and Mars (that's why the Moon has many craters). We couldn't just appear in the mist with trees fully grown, grass sprouted, and humans, well humans. We had to grow, because it is our nature. Everyone says that the chances of the Earth being born is one in trillions, but there is something called infinite universes with infinite possibilities. We are alive in a universe where the Earth does exist, and there is probably more intelligent beings outside of the Milky Way.
This is the only option backed up by actual science. The other one is just unproven religion.
God & science can coexist! I do consider myself a spiritual girl, but I don't allow the Bible to blind me or make me ignorant to things like education & science. Science told us that Jesus Christ did exist - the controversy is regarding his divinity. Ultimately, nobody knows who or what made all of existence. That's what faith is all about, isn't it? However, there is scientific & physical proof of evolution with explanations that can be tested. We cannot deny researches, tested, & proven sources like fossil records or DNA analysis. Some people are saying evolution is not any more provable than the theory of creationism & will mention that on a smaller scale there is no cure for diseases & the monkeys/apes we evolved from still exist. To put it shortly, evolution took millions of years. This isn't meant to sound insulting or offensive, but if that's your argument, you don't have an understanding of what evolution is or how it works. We do have common ancestors; we did not evolve straight from monkeys & apes though. The process took something like 30 million years (if I'm not mistaken - sorry). Consider how sharks, some shellfish, bees, alligators, & crocodiles still exist. They're all prehistoric creatures. In regard to diseases still existing: our bodies & genes have evolved, so they adapt, too. Diseases evolve in the same way human societies do.
There is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Creationism. Evolution is change overtime. While Creationism is just some invisible man in the sky said "let there be light" and then created everything. I mean we are related to monkeys but the reason why they exist along side us is because they can survive in their environment. So there is always going to be more evidence for Evolution than Creationism.
Something ive noticed is that many people in the comments act as if Christianity is the only religion based on Creationism. So, im going to debate it on a standard level. Evolutionist believe in, basically, logic. Now, you may say "well where did we come from?", well where did the creator came from? Its a matter of perspective. However we got here, i highly doubt it was by some magical being or some form of kami. Creationism is holding science back, we need to think logically to advance and improve our future. We cant all depend on something that we havent seen.
God told me I'm right.
Where did we come from? Some dude in the sky that created us himself imperfectly, killed us all for being imperfect, then sent his son to be killed by us so we are forgiven as long as he's killed, which he than reappears 3 days later. Great homophobic genocide story, my favorite bit is where the magical carnivores got on the ark than didn't eat the other animals, or maybe when god had the power to kill everything including innocent animals with a flood, but didn't have the power to make basic vegetables grow for the remaining survivors to eat. The food chain and how well adapted every animal is proves survival of the fittest, therefore evolution. Evolution is flawed, your book is shit. If i could stop a murder from happening in front of me i would, and god wouldn't appear and stop it. If he does exist he's either not all good or not all powerful.
Religion was, For the most part, Made to make sense of our little understanding of the world around us. Then it eventually came into the basis of forming laws to control people, But since we've learned so much about our world, Religion is becoming outdated. Evidence for Evolution, Even in the short term: Farming, Flu strains, And countless others.
Alright, This is an age old debate. And lets be honest, An age old debate is age old because neither side is willing to cave. No one caved back then, No one will cave today. The only solace I have is that at least 64% of all people are educated enough to understand why evolution is real. Evolution is backed up with evidence. (Read Darwin's Origin Of Species) (Creation is not. Creation is still a theory postulated through human intuition. [just like the "earth is flat" theory dictated by optical intuition]). Evolution's evidence is not limited to Darwin however. Have any of the creationists even researched about the chain between chimps and homo sapiens(aka humans)? Probably not, Since they were reading their little fairytales. . Oops I meant religious texts. Anyway my goal isn't to educate or insult anyone. Instead I'm merely saying it's not their fault, Since we naturally have herd mentality. So, We'll follow the people we've grown up knowing. However, It would do them some good to open their eyes once in a while.