Is there ANY evidence that does not support evolution? ...better yet support creationism?

Question

I'm sorry...credible evidence...Please do not give me a drdino.com link. His crackpot pseudo-science can very easily be picked apart.

freelancenut: The tracks at Glen Rose have been proven to be non-human tracks..probably distorted dinosaur tracks. Good try though.

fireball: That is just an outright lie. Show me some evidence...

Neptune: Don't give me your 'whoa is me' speech'. I am a reasonable person who would like to see some reasonable evidence. And if you have none, then stop perpetrating these irrational lies about evolution.

What about me: Do a search on sockeyed trout that was introduced to a lake in Washington. A new species of the fish was produced in 70 years! While most species have taken quite a bit longer to change, this is exactly what you are seeking.

Answer 1

I think that both theories are flawed. I believe there is evidence of both evolution and creationism in front of us all the time. I believe that the entire front of both theories will remain flawed until humans can set aside their pride and differences and work together to compare and contrast each one. Until then there will be crucial flaws in both theories. I think that our origins as a species runs deeper than we can possibly begin to fathom and we will most likely always be in the dark on that matter trying bash one flawed and inconsistent hypothesis with another, just as we are doing with the Evolution verse creationism debate.

Answer 2

The evidence for creation is in God's design. If evolution actually occurred, then fossills would contain some transitional forms. That is a part frog and part bird or whatever. The fact is, among the millions of fossills found, NOT ONE has ever shown a transitional form. There is a wonderful little book called THE ILLUSTRATED ORIGINS ANSWER BOOK. This book is less than 50 pages long and has about 50 pages in the bibliography. It contains hundreds of scientific facts that tend toward creation. All evolutionist ideas are considered and cut into ribbons by scientifc facts. All prehistoric "man" evidence was shown and it is quite funny how little "science" was in some of these discoveries. They only had a piece of skull bone and a single tooth on one and from that they could tell how tall he was and what he ate. Seems a bit of a stretch. They show that dinasaur fossills are most all standing! Wow! Say it again backwards. Wow! This must have happened at the time of the flood when tons of mud covered them very suddenly. They show almost one hundred ways to discover the true age of the earth. Most show the earth is closer to ten thousand years than ten billion years. You see for evolution to work, it takes a long time. If this earth is much younger, out the window with evolution. By the way, Darwin recanted his theory of evolution before his death. If a modern scientist would present such an unsupported theory today, he'd be laughed out of town. If you are truly searching for facts not emotional arguments, you really ought to read this book.

Answer 3

Scientists have been baffled by the "missing link." The clear line between early primates and humans is broken. Scientists believe that they can extrapolate species that fit in the broken line, but have not found physical evidence of it. This could be evidence that some how something interviened and created humans. This could be evidence that discredits the scientific thought of evolution and lends credit to creationism. However, it is widely thought that if we keep looking hard enough, we will find the fossilized evidence that will support evolution.

When all is said and done, believe what you want. I think a creator set in motion evolution. The bible is an interesting story that tries to explain this idea in terms that man could understand 2000 years ago.

Answer 4

against evolution: speciation has never been seen. In other words, while one can breed for characteristics in dogs, lets say, producing true breeding breeds, one has never been able to turn a cat into a dog even though evolution claims a common ancestor. The fossil record, while suggestive, is incomplete and DNA divergence calculations are mere speculation at best.

for creation: the fossil record seems to support creation. How? via the periodic 'explosion' of diverse life forms seemingly 'just appearing' within a very short band of time.

In the end, neither is provable or even experimentally testable, and as such, barely qualify for the term 'theory', if at all.

Answer 5

Well, that is a loaded question. It depends on your beliefs in a higher being, or lack of belief.

I for one believe that evolution is true and you can see it every day of your life. Species adapt to environmental changes when needed.

I don't buy the whole "before there was the big bang some higher being had to exist" story. If that was the case, then you have effectively stated that something did exist before the big bang.

So I would say there is evidence that does not support evolution,but it does not come from credible scientists. Again, it is all about believing in something.

Answer 6

Yes, there's a theory of our earth's magnetic forces. Everything had a magnetic field..including our planet. Scientists have been monitoring it for the past 100+ years & have determined the rate of decline.

As the magnetic field is reduced...our lifespan & other physics is also reduced.

Since reptiles never stop growing throught their entire lifespan...imagine how big they would be if they lived 4-5 times longer. Dinosaur size!

And since life can only be supported under a certain magnetic force..this theory has dated our planet to about 5000 years old.

I forgot the name of the book, but it was written in the past 5 years by an Evolutionist professor/scientist who turned Creationist after his extensive research into the field.

There's a lot of other scientific facts in the book also...it wasn't a religious book..just based on facts.

Answer 7

Creation Research has a newsletter they put out (as well as an email version), and in each letter there is a lot of interesting facts - more than can be mentioned, of course. But - to answer your question - yes. there is plenty of evidence that supports intelligent design in creation.

One such example is found in DNA. Dr. Flue (yes - that's actually his name), was an avowed atheist. During his reasearch into human DNA, he was forced to conclude that it's just too complex to have happened by accident or coincidence. It would be like a Cray supercomputer being built AND programmed - BY ACCIDENT - as the result of an explosion in a parts store! Dr. Flue now believes in intelligent design - due to his studies in DNA, chromosomes, and genetics. He's not necessarily a Christian, but he's definitely NOT an atheist any more.

There's plenty more examples, but too many to list here.

But, on the other side of the coin, there is NO sound evidence for evolution. In fact, when scientists attempt to prove evolution by trying to "create" life in a laboratory, it only goes to prove that intelligence is required to do it, along with some very complex equipment that already had to exist in order to be used, which, likewise, was the results of intelligent design.

Answer 8

I've heard some scientists point to the fact that some life...cro magnon for instance...shows up in epochs that don't make sense in evolutionary terms. That's the only thing even remotely scientific against the theory I'm aware of.

For evidence against creationism the entire point of their arguement is that god is too logical to include evidence of his existence; that would show there was good from their metaphorically eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The theory seems to be that God wouldn't leave evidence man could understand, because if he did not enough people would go to hell, or the wrong people would make it heaven or something.

Answer 9

No. Evolution has never been disproved.

As far as creationism... Intelligent design--alluding to the very politically charged textbook--has been refuted by both scientist and religious people. There is a current rift between science and religion, but it's been created for political reasons, and fueled by misinformation. Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive.

Science has never disproved that there is a god. I suggest that no-one buys into the rift. I suggest that people should question the intentions of those who are trying to create this rift.

Answer 10

Virtually all.

Natural biological evolution fails at all levels except for those species numbering more than about one quadrillion individuals with generation times less than three months and body sizes smaller than one centimeter.

Check out:
http://www.reasons.org/