A question for creationists?

Question

Do any of you have a college degree in the field of Biology or Biochemistry? And if yes, after you've seen all the evidence and explanantion in your classes, you still don't believe in Evolution, but will believe something written in a book 2000 years ago with no proof whatsoever?

For those who said that Evolution is only a theory, I agree. But there are proof of evolution (DNA tracing, fossil records, etc.). What proof is there for Creationism?

To the guy who ask if Education is important to me. Heck yes. I wouldn't want a doctor to operate on me without going through medical school. Likewise, I woudn't want a biology lesson from someone who didn't graduate from an accreditted university with a biology degree. I can't trust God to educate either.

It's stil called Newton's Theory of Gravity. So does that mean you creationist don't believe in it? Try jumping off a building.

Answer 1

DEFIES logic doesn't it? thenagain logic was never their best subject

Answer 2

One does not need a degree in either of these fields to know that you are basing what you believe on your Monkey Manual theory. We Christians, on the other hand, believe that a world as complex as ours (that includes everyone and everything on this planet) was created by God. The Big Bang theory is a rediculous notion at best. As to proof of God's existence, you will find this out for yourself in due time. The Theory of Evolution is just that. A theory. There is no proof for a theory. Look up the definition of theory in your dictionary.

Answer 3

Your the kind that probably thinks condoms are safe because a teacher told you so... With all the proof to the contrary. Hmm. Why do you find it so hard to trust God that you need to learn from mere men and women? Is education that important to you? I dare say that educated elitists think way too much of themselves and control the minds of impressionable sheep, much the same way organized religion controls it's masses. Faith is different though. Not something you can learn in a book. No, you need to live life on the edge and experience life for what it is to really know anything.

Answer 4

MOST of the evidence and explanation in YOUR classes, are THEORIES like the THEORY of evolution. NONE of it has been PROVEN at all. now things have evolved over the years yes to fit their habitat, but not monkeys to men, there are several holes in your theory...

Answer 5

I did study Biology... I thought evolution was just a theory, not a law... and pretty much it's just a matter of faith... you may choose to have faith in evolution, others choose a different theory...

Answer 6

Check out www.godsci.org it's a very interesting sight brought to my attention by a former athiest. And, I know before I ever even got on Yahoo Answers that scientists have proved that parts of the Bible are factual. Check it out.

Answer 7

Three of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are: 1) There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. 2) The alleged process cannot be duplicated even with the best minds under the strictest laboratory conditions. 3) Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully formed when first present. If the theory of evolution were true, we would expect to find many more transitional forms of life than fully formed ones, and yet we never find "half-formed" hands, feet, flippers, fins, eyes, ears, noses, or feathers. The hypothesis that "pre-men" existed is an ambiguous conjecture at best. Upon investigation, virtually all so-called "missing links" turn out to be bones of apes, men, or historical frauds.
"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

Answer 8

Lucky, it's not "monkeys to men" if you really do know your facts.

Additionally, there is so much overwhelming evidence over 'gaps' that it is now known as facts if you have kept up with recent science.

Answer 9

(DNA tracing, fossil records, etc.). is proof for Creationism?

Answer 10

To Lucky: Replace the word "Theory" with "Banana" and that's how much sense you made labelling Evolution and it's evidence as theories just now.

Evidence for Evolution is world data, or facts.

Evolutionary Theory is a theory, but this suggests nothing of its reliability, nor of its credibility. Theories never graduate into laws, they are apples and oranges to each other. Given the evidence for Evolutionary Theory, it's blatantly obvious that Evolution by Natural Selection and Common Descent is true.

As for the question at hand, few creationists have College education, but those that do are either one of the following:

1. Believe Creationism, but admit there's no scientific backing for it.

2. Believe Creationism and claim scientific backing, but have education in unrelated fields (a lot of mathematicians and engineers, but VERY few Biologists).

EDIT:"1).There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals"

Why does the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection have to make claims about the origin of life? Is it going to have to prove math principles and the Fundamental Theorem of Line Integrals now?

Even so, I'd fight you on that point. Separate Hypotheses of Abiogenesis and Early World RNA Hypothesis are very intriguing and promising explanations of the origin of life.

"2) The alleged process cannot be duplicated even with the best minds under the strictest laboratory conditions."

Sepciation events have been observed and are continued to be observed. Not to mention, you completely ignore experimentation in Cellular Autonoma and Genetic Algorithms.

"3) Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex."

So? The Proposed Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains exactly how complexity is formed.

Also:

"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."

You quote-mined.

"The fact that the fossil data did not, on the whole, seem to fit this prevailing model of the process of evolution - for example, in the absence of intermediate forms and of gradually changing lineages over millions of years - was readily explained by the notorious incompleteness of the fossil record. In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be "wrong". A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?

Spearheaded by this extraordinary journal, palaeontology is now looking at what it actually finds, not what it is told that it is supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge and Gould. Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution."

-Tom Kemp

You quote-mined.

Hitching Francis is not an archaeologist at all. It very obvious when you look at what he claims in his books.

O'Rourke was quote-mined as well:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism. (Emphasis added)

The original pragmatism of Peirce, James, Dewey, and other turn-of-the-century American philosophers drew many of its best illustrations from geology, but geologists have not used the pragmatic method to improve their basic argument...."

However, his article is in fact atrocious and turns into a poor debate on materialism shortly after this (I'd post relevant parts, but this post is long enough as it is)...

As for the rest of your post, it is essentially one big collection of quotes, most of which are quote mines and quotes from creationists with little qualifications for this field.

Anyone interested to look up the quote mines can use this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html