Can The Evidence For Evolution Be Evidence For Creationism?

Question

Let's just go through a few of the icons of evolution.

Similar bone structure - evidence for a similar creator

Human DNA similar to Monkey's - DNA is the building blocks that God used. He created monkeys with similar body structure and thus similar DNA.

Many mammalian fetuses look similar - same explination as the bone structure, but this one is currently under dispute as many scientist are seeing now they aren't that similar at all.

Appendix - has been shown to aid in the disgestive system, though you can obviously live with out it. (I currently short one appendix)

What are you going to refute this with the fossil record?

O wait...its not complete... but surely the bones are out there somewhere!

Fact is we're still waiting on Darwin's indisputable fossil evidence.

Answer 1

carborundum, "You claim fossilisation takes millenniums but science proves it takes much less than a human life time.All it requires for a perfectly formed living creatures to be fossilised is to embalm it in mud and conglomerates. A miners axe circa 18th century was found fossilised in coal seams. So what happened to the millions of years compaction?" I love when people use half truths to prove a point. You made a great effort except you didn't give the whole truth. I've noticed that christians do this very often. They usually use one part of scripture to make point, yet neglect to mention the rest of the scripture. Let's enlighten you oh believe of the 6,000 year earth. 1. Yes you are absolutely correct. It doesn't take that long for something to become "encased" in rock or minerals. Your miners axe circa 1800 was not a fossil. It was an axe that was encased in coal. meaning, once you broke the coal open, the axe was there intact. There is no molecular change. In a true fossil a molecular change happens where the organic material is no longer there. The methane gasses, through carbonization, form an imprint on the rock of what the animal looked like. Stop watching jurassic park. You axe is a mosquito trapped in amber. Same principal. I can go right now, put a mosquito in amber, freeze it and have a fossil and it would only be a few hours old. The only relevant instance is in the case would be the finding of wolly mamoths frozen, completely whole with food still in their mouths and stomach. Please, before you post, get your facts straight!!!!

Answer 2

I presume this is a joke? Many mammalian fetuses (sic) look similar-be serious. Biological evidence is valid-subjective nonsense isn't.

P.S. The fossil record is complete for several hundred species showing evolutionary change so that destroys that argument and Darwin is a non issue-he died before modern science revealed most of the fossils that are now available for study. Your argument is therefore down the drain just like creationism as a whole-deal with it. Just you lot keep churning out the fantasies and you'll be embarassed by hard facts.

Answer 3

You have only stated the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the science behind evolution. But yes, the science you have stated can be used to support creationism, just not scientifically. Scientifically speaking, you can't say we all have similar genetics, so it points to a creator. That isn't how science works. You need a viable hypothesis, then when you've collected data via records, experiments, observation, and physical evidence, you judge if it supports your hypothesis. If it does, then you have a theory. There is no way of scientifically supporting creationism, because by the nature of God, you can't support the existence scientifically.

Answer 4

Its funny that scientists do draw these conclusions. Take for instance D.N.A. And also R.N.A if you like. They do say that they are similar, but how so? Well they're similar in that we are human and they are ape. I know that sounds a bit cryptic, sorry. But when it comes to genetics and the building blocks for life they have to be exact or they will miss by a mile. Imagine you are building a skyscraper. One side of the building has one brick and the other side has a different kind. They're very similar but one in about 2% larger. Will this matter if you are building 5 stories? Perhaps not. But what about 105? Or 155? I know that's a crude illustration but it serves its use. Evolution works on similarities, not exacts, and that's where it falls on its face. The universe is too precise and it doesn't tolerate similarities.That's why high-breads die and so do all mutations. We're not talking about cross breeding now we're talking about genetic malfunction of mutation. Also, we could ask, have mutations ever been positive? Clearly no. So that's it for evolution, it was a theory that Darwin himself never ascribed faith in. That's life and that's how God made it.

Answer 5

If you pick and choose your evidence, find four items that are equivocal, and ignore the big picture, you can get the answers you want. That's not science. When you reject the fossil record outright, and when you say "similar DNA" while ignoring block chromosomal shifts revealed by sequencing, you are using a pretty big hammer to get a square peg into a round hole.

Answer 6

The difference is that with Evolution, the idea developed as the result of examining the evidence while with "Creationism", the story was created and then evidence sought to back it up. Following your read of the evidence, it is just as likely that the "evidence" points to a 500 ton purple duck hiding behind Neptune while intermittently farting out creations.

Answer 7

God vs. Science

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need You anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me," replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "We can take dirt and form it into the Likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the Earth and starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no," interrupts God. "Get your own dirt!"

Answer 8

my dad posed this question once. But I mean god just didn' zap people on earth like that. If the zapping happened at all, he zapped lucy and the dinosuars and other stuff. Maybe we're just a giant sea monkey tank...........

Answer 9

This is a joke right?

You can step in at any stage and say, isn't this evidence for a creator? And the answer is always no.

Answer 10

There is no evidence for evolution so...no.

Bone structure is not similar. Go back to A&P class.

Neither is DNA. Go back to Genetics class.

Fetuses do not look similar. Go back to Embryology class.

These things are not disputed as you suggest. You're ignorant of basic science within these fields.

Evolution is the only scientific hypotheses where scientists nod their heads in consensus about findings that disprove the hypothesis and then insist that evolution is fact.

The undeniable truth about evolution is that, despite over 100 years of inquiry, it fails every test based on the scientific method across all fields of science.

Further, science is, by its very nature, of limited scope. It's only a tiny part of the human condition. It simply is not an appropriate tool for examining the issue of creationism and the validity of evolution and (more to the point) the lack of the validity of evolution says NOTHING about creationism.

This is an intentional false argument designed by secular marxists in a blatant attempt to strip people of their faith and religion with the goal of stripping them of their morality so that they will allow the heinously evil acts (genocide, slavery, incredible depravity and oppression, crimes against humanity) you ALWAYS see where marxism is allowed to take root. People of faith simply do not allow these things. So, for the marxist, the first stage is to trick people into giving up their faith. Evolution has been used as a tool for that for decades. But, just to add insult to injury, evolution isn't even close to meeting the objective standards of science. Note that this abuse of science works not only against religion, but it degrades science itself. Making it no more than dogma.