I am curious about how creationists dismiss evolution?

Question

Evolution is as good as fact.we can see in fossils evolve over time.could anyone tell me any strong evidence against it.i just want to hear the other side of the story.cheers

Answer 1

The religious fundies are afraid of evolution because of the frailty of their belief system. Their belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible pushes them into a corner on evolution so they can't coherently argue for the existence of God without falling back on "the Bible says."

Answer 2

The answer is yes there is a true and living god that created our universe and any other possible universes. But what scientist have done is simmilar to say if there were people who lived on a pizza planet, and over the course of time the pizza people discovered dough floating out in space, and they later found all the other ingredients such as cheese, pepperones, sausage, tomato sauce and all that other stuff that was used to make the pizza planet.
We'll that's what science has done; is they have found the stuff used to make our planet. But the big mistake they're making is not giving credit to the chef that made the pizza to the true and living god that created our universe. It does'nt matter how many times the scients try say it or sugar coat it, the truth, I said the truth, not just plain facts and guessing; which is what the scient are doing is guessing, or making an intelegent hypothesis, what ever you want to call it it's still guessing. Their guess about things and unfortunately presenting them as facts, as a susosed truth when they dont really know the truth.
When it comes to things like two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen equals water their ok on that. Their ok one the chemistry stuff generally. But when it comes to questions like: Where did the universe come from?, Where did life start?, How did animals evolve?, and other deep questions like that, the scientist make the mistake of presenting their guesses as truth when it is not.
The christian Bible (The real truth; cuase Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6) actually addresses a few or some of theese questions that scientist and other people want to know. The thing is that the answers (With the exception of genesis where God explain how he made the universe) are scattered through out the Bible. The answers to some of theese questions are scattered because like to speak in mystery so that it would generally have to read his word (Bible) so that we can find them and hopefully acept Christ in the process.
But to give a short answer for the question, the answer is creationist dont really dismiss evolution as being real; we just know that like the example I gave you of the pizza people who found all the ingredients out in space or wherever, we know evolution is not the chef, is not the creator; God (Jesus Christ) is the chef, God is the creator, and evolution, asteroids, comets, meteors ect.... are only the ingredient and the method used to create everything that comprises our world.

Answer 3

If you really want to know, then perhaps the following article might help:

................................
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution
© 1999 Dr. Royal Truman

In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.

After some months, Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes’ notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon’s work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.

After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!

[See the link for the rest of the article]

...........................................

***edit***

This website has several articles written by different scientists in different fields. You can browse through and get an idea of the creationist viewpoint. Another book that you could check out at the library, if you are still curious, is "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" by Dr. John Ashton, ed., ISBN # 0-89051-341-4, Library of Congress Catalog # 00-110204.

***edit2***

Regarding the guy below me, note that rearranging pre-existing information is not the same thing as creating coded information from random noise (something that Shannon's Information Theory says is statistically impossible, not the creationists). But I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other. Please, read the articles and make up your own mind.

Answer 4

It is easy to dismiss something if you ignore or don't understand the evidence. A typical claim from creationists is that no mutation ever increases the information in an organism. This is incorrect. Here is a simple mechanism that allows organisms to increase in complexity.

Sometimes, when a cell divides, it will get an extra copy of a chromosome. If the extra chromosome does not interfere with the cell's ability to survive, then it makes little or no difference.

Now, over the course of time, mutations can occur on one or both of the duplicate chromosomes, and this can lead to two diverging or different chromosomes, where there was only one before. This means that there is another extra "library shelf" in the cell for storing new genes or beneficial mutations. The new daughter cells are now more complex than their ancestor.

This new cell can have properties that the original did not, and one of them is the ability to have more proteins and enzymes in its bag of survival tricks. It does not take many generations for this to actually be a new species.

Add to that the fact that some cells can incorporate DNA or RNA from other cells, and this can actually add more instructions using a mechanical pathway instead of a genetic one. Here I have presented two mechanisms for increasing the complexity of simple organisms, something that creationists claim is not possible.

Answer 5

I would disagree with the premise that "Evolution is as good as fact." We have not seen fossils evolve over time. All we have seen is images of bones of dead things. The evolving is just a theory.

Creationists cannot accept that things so complex and well made as animals and people just happened by chance. Man has not evolved over the entire time of historical records. We have not witnessed the birth of new species. The chemicals of life are all around us, but we cannot re-animate them. Amino acids abound, but no new life emerges. The number of things that have to happen correctly in the growth of just about anything is astronomically high. Chalking it all up to chance and time is intellectually dishonest.

Answer 6

Some stolen comments from different sites on why creationists reject evolution *If you ever look at cliffs you will see that they erode rapidly. In "millions of years" they would have long gone *One of the questionable assumptions of evolution is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. *The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. *The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. I believe that evolution is dismissed on some very reasonable grounds and not out of ignorance or because of religious indoctrination as you suggest

Answer 7

Because they are arrogant and presume to be able to say that god didnt create evolution...I mean for people that believe in an all powerful deity they sure dont have much faith in his ability to create a process such as evolution. I dont believe there is a god but I believe if I am wrong and there is that he probably created evolution, since I know evolution occurs and has been proven many times over and observed by myself in the world around me...I know if there turns out to be a god he is the one who designed evolution.

Answer 8

This is religion vs science. The case for creationism or intelligent design is all religion. Religion is based on faith and is unprovable. No experiment can be devised to prove or disprove a religion-based theory of existence.

The flip side is science. A theory is a scientific theory if it can be tested by experimentation. The scientific method calls on us to gather information then attempt to understand what we are seeing. once we begin to put together a theory we then look for experiments we can execute to prove or disprove pieces of our theory. We then change our theory if pieces are disproved. This makes it unlike religion because we test and we change.

A creationist looks on this as a weakness or uncertainty in the evolution theory.

Scientists have gathered lots of fossils. Many are not complete but they do resemble skeletal remains of similar creatures that we can extrapolate and say that for example, this tooth came from a giant iquana, even though we are missing all but the tooth.

Having said that we are open to other interpretations of the tooth fossil.

So basically, religion is untestable. Creationists see the willingness of the scientific community to change theory as new data come in as a weakness. They also see gaps in the fossil record as a weakness in the theory.

On the side of evolution though, it lead to science looking for what it was that was carrying on traits from parent to offispring and that lead to the discovery of genes -which lead to advances in agriculture and to the discovery of DNA. The existence of DNA is a strong argument in favor of evolution as it seems ideally suited to fit the bill as a mechanism for allowing changes to occur in response to the environment over geologic time.

Answer 9

hope

there are really that many people in the world so scared and so ignorant that they are willing to believe in anything that offers a little hope. evolution theory offers no hope. but then eternal life, now there's some hope. ever wonder why people buy lottery tickets? after all state lotteries are just a tax on people who are bad at math. the same rules apply.

Answer 10

Satan created fossils to tempt scientists into non-belief!!