Who believes in intelligent Creation instead of Evolution?Why?

Question

As I study Evolution I realise that there is absolutely no solid proof for it, and Science proffesors just answer me in circles. "Fossils!" most tell me, but I've realised something that makes me doubt the theory: the fossils date the rocks they are in, and the rocks date the fossils! Am I missing something? C14 gives false dates, such as dating a sealion who's just died 2500 years old!
The more I look into intelligent Creation, the more I realise that there is nothing to disclaim it. What do you think?

Answer 1

Evolution is in Genesis. Take a look at Chapter 1. I don't know about the heavens but start at how the sea gave way to land. The Earth is a water planet with a very active crust. Up to now, land is being thrust up from the sea via volcanic eruptions. Then vegetation came after. Then sea life, then land animals, then birds.

The creation of man and woman heralds the arrival of the earliest form of humanoid life, such as Australopithecus. Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens sapiens. Evidence of this is found in mitochondrial DNA.

Faith and science have always been at odds since the time of antiquity. But please remember that the first scientists were priests. There should be faith in science and we know that there is science in faith.

Answer 2

The bottom line is that no one has ever observed one general kind of animal change into another. This is a fact not a theory. the lowest level of strata that geologists have is the Cambrian level and there we OBSERVE most general kinds of animals already fully developed and together. Again this is a fact not a theory. So no one can scientifically say how those Cambrian fossils got there since there are no fossils below that level. You have to go outside of science and that is where the biblical creation story fits best which includes that all animals and people were made within days of each other and that they were made to reproduce according to their general kind(which is what we OBSERVE as fact not theory when it comes to reproducing in like kinds). How could just one animal, say a mouse (assuming that somehow we got one), become pregnant if there was no male or female mice around. That means you would have to have male and female reproductive organs develop. To this day we not not find a male born with female reproductive organs or visa versa (thank God). The first mouse would die out and that would be the end of all future mice. Also all of that would have to be repeated probably thousands of times for all the different animals that have existed. That really takes FAITH to believe. I'll use a little faith and believe male and female versions of animals were made together except for literally a handful of asexual creatures such as worms and hydras which reproduce by themselves without sex because they were probably created that way.

Intelligent Design has the following scientfic points behind it:
Irreducible Complexity, Information Theory and Design Theory. I won't elaborate here because i have already wrote a lot.

Answer 3

Well, for one thing, I wouldn't believe in something scientifically only because it hasn't been disproven, you'll end up on the short end of the stick more often than not with that one. Fossils are not the only evindence of evolution. Just look at the adaptation of species. Take humans for example. Why do Vikings have so much hair? Because in the beginning all the hairy people were like "hey, since we're so hairy let's move up north where it's cold!". No, they evolved. The ones with more hair had a slightly better chance of survival, thus their genes had a better chance to move on. This is just a small example. If humans long ago were chased around by a giant monster getting eaten all the time, we would probably be a lot faster because the faster ones would havea better chance for survival, thus their genes are the ones to move on. Also, just something else to think about: isn't it also possible that it's both? Couldn't the universe have been created intelligently (big bang for example) with evolution built into the system? In other words, evolution having been intelligently designed?

Answer 4

Unfortunately you have been mislead. There is a lot of Creationist misinformation out there.

The observation that the same layer of rock contains the same fossils is used to trace that layer to a tie-point, which is dated by radiometric dating (potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating). There is no evolutionary interpretation involved in picking which "index fossils" to use for correlation. It is simple observation. Stamp-collecting as my supervisor used to call it.

All the capitalist petroleum companies in the world use this to find oil. No geologist has a problem with it because it works. Geology just simply wouldn't work if it was false.

Carbon-14 dating can only be used on relatively young things, and then NOT on a lot of things, like Arctic/Antarctic fauna. 99.9% of the time it is done correctly and gives useful dates. But occasionally someone who doesn't know what they are doing will stuff up (and be corrected by other scientists). Creationist propagandist very frequently "quote-mine" errors such as this to mislead people. Or, knowing when it can't be used, deliberately use it themselves in those circumstance.

There is no scientific evidence behind Intelligent Design. So it cannot be disproved, or proved. It is not Science.

Evolution by Natural Selection is Science and can be disproved, but it hasn't been. There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection, including the evolution in morphology that we observe among the 250,000 known fossil species. But also much much more.

Ok, most types of animals were not "fully develped" in the Cambrian. That is deception. Many PHYLA gradually appeared over tens of millions of years in the Ediacaran and Cambrian - PHYLA - vertebrates were microscopic worms. PHYLA as it's very hard to evolve a whole new body plan later in evolution. Many many instances of speciation have been observed by modern science (link 1) and sex could easily have evolved (link 2). Irreducible Complexity and etc is not science (link 3)

Answer 5

Actually, they date the fossils with radiation dating. Carbon dating is one kind of radiation dating, but not the only one. It is the least accurate, but they have methods that can date back millions of years. The rocks are used as a rough estimate on site until they can have a lab do the real radiation dating. Creationism might not have any proof against it, but there is also none for it. There is an abundance of science to support evolution, including observation. that's right, evolution has been observed and recorded. See the history of tuberculosis.

Answer 6

Evolution is real. Even as people, over just the past 500 years, we have become taller. That is evolution.

As for me, I believe in both God, and evolution.

I believe the people God first created, did not look like me.
I believe that we have evolved into who we are today.

To say you don't believe in evolution is just being blind. It's all around you. As animals adapt to their environment, that is evolution.

When your professors answer you with "fossils," what they are saying is, there were humans long before us, that did not look like us. There are fossils to prove this. This has nothing to do with carbon dating them. They lived, that is all you need to know, to prove evolution. Not how long ago they lived.

Carbon dating is not an exact science. But, when fossils are found in rock formations, you don't have to carbon date to know how long they might have been there. You would also look at how many layers of rock they are under.
But, this again, does not rule out evolution.

Answer 7

Carbon14 radiometric dating isn't the only dating method. Besides, it's already been proven and accepted by radiometric experts that some things just can't be dated using c14. Molluscs are one example because they absorb minerals, including c14 and it's daughter material, into their body and therefore give false readings.

The important point here is that it's been accepted that there are discrepancies in some cases but only 3% of all tests prove to be failures. Creationists only focus on this 3% and try to prove that because of this 3 in 100 chance that radiometric testing is completely flawed.

Answer 8

Intelligent design and creationism are the same thing. How can you believe in creation, but not be a creationist? You are a creationist. And, good for you. Stick to your beliefs. But let others stick to theirs. I think we evolved, and I don't know where the first simple cells came from. Whether a cosmic accident, or divine spark, we are here and should be glad of it. Peace.

Answer 9

I believe in Creation. I think it takes a lot more blind faith to believe in Evolution. Scientists grasp at straws trying to 'prove' it. And more and more Scientists are beginning to realize there is something to this theory of intelligent design. There has to be a beginning for all living things, and, if that's the case, something has to be out there creating them. Whether a person believes in God or not, it's evident there is a higher power than us running the show.

Answer 10

I'm firmly in the middle on this one but as I get older I realize that the intelligent designer still has a few bugs to work out. Enough said.