Creation vs. Evolution...?

Question

Yes, I know this is a dead horse but I could not resist. Before I start listing off my question, I would like to state that I firmly believe in creation so if my questions seem biased, that is why. Nevertheless, I am open to the answers and opinions of those who share a different view. Thanks. :)

So, let the questions begin:

1. Evolution states that matter came from nothing, life from non-life and humans from animals. However, how could that be? All of these are impossibilities in the world of science. Why is that evolution is the only process that can make life from non-life and humans themselves have never been able to make this happen.

2. Evolution uses fossils to back up it's theory. However, fossils are also what contradict evolution. For one, why are there no transitional fossils? If life really did evolve slowly transitional fossils would be unavoidable.

Having said this..What is there really to back up belief in evolution. In my opinion, most people do not (continued)

believe in creation simply because creation is based on the Bible. I find that people do not actually have something against creation but rather against the Bible.

But is this really a reason not to believe that everything was created?

I would love opinions on what I have stated. Also, correct me if I have erred anywhere.

Why do people not believe in creation? I know why I don't believe in evolution why do people not believe in creation?

I don't mean this in a sense that if someone believes in something different from me it is wrong. Rather, what convinces you in evolution or what convinces you in creation?

By the way...What I know about evolution is based on what I have been taught in school.

"No, evolution says nothing about the origins of life." --- Then what is the origin of life? :)

Wow.. Everyone seems appalled at my questions. I'm sorry if I seem ignorant but that is what I have been taught in school. And considering I have a high mark in the class, it could not be that I did not pay attention.

Either way, if I didn't find something fishy about what I have been taught, I wouldn't ask about it. This is WHY I'm asking. Because I don't understand what I have been taught. That and I like hearing opinions of other people.

If evolution does not state the origin of life then what is the origin of life?

Answer 1

1. science is not afraid to admit that a lot of what happened to form life is unclear. That does NOT mean "god did it"

2. please don't trot out the creationist line. It is severely outdated. There are a number of transitional fossils and the collection is growing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Look, unlike some of the askers with the exact same question you sound like a reasonable human being. You have mastered grammar and spelling, and your tone is not of the 'frothing at the mouth' variety. But you use the old arguments that simply aren't valid anymore. Please, read up on where we are with evolution theory, and let go of the fossil thing. Unless you want me asking why we can't find Nephilim or those other giant fossils. This is a good starting point with lots of outward links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

What you have been taught in school might or might not be what I was taught in school, I am 33 right now. But since that time there have been enormous strides in all of these sciences, even if a lot of it still hasn't made it into the classroom. If you'll pardon the joke, science is not static like the bible. It evolves with us, and it has made tremendous leaps. There is nothing that would completely overthrow the theory of evolution, any more than there is something that could completely overthrow the theory of gravity. Maybe change details, or specifics, but nothing to completely nullify it.

And you're right on the origin of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life ), a lot of it is still up in the air, scientifically speaking. However, that is not a reason to turn around and say "obviously, god did it".

And to speak nothing of the fact that you are assuming your religion (out of what, hundreds or thousands or world religions?) is the only correct one. That is really presumptious, and what irks a lot of atheists.

Answer 2

Plants and Animals do adapt within limited parameters. Evolutionist like to call this “micro-evolution” but this is a false label. We already know the DNA for “micro-evolution” already exist in each species and no new data is ever being created out of thin air. And new data is what "evolution" would require.

So that is the evolution hat trick, there really is no evolution. Animals can adapt in a limited way in order to survive and this was built into the design. However, never has any creature “evolved” into a new plant or animal. The theory of evolution has been completely dead now for the better part of four decades. Yet, on they go as if we don't know. But considering they built an entire "pre-human" skull from the tooth of an extinct pig demonstrates they are not only willing to be dishonest with the public but also with themselves.

And as you might notice the atheists on this board will always state the evolution does not deal with the origins of life. While technically correct that is still being dishonest because evolution has always implied this. This is why Darwin named his book “The Origin of Species.” Basically, God didn't do it but some type of unknown magic did.

You will also hear the claim that there are thousands of transitional fossils. However, the evolutionists will also state that “all” fossils are transitional. They will point to certain futures on a given fossil and state that it is the origin of a wing or flipper for example. However, they can never confirm that creature ever transformed into anything else and for good reason it didn’t. The classic "evolution of the horse" that was in high school text books was actually proven to be a fraud by the evolutionist themselves and yet they failed to remove it. Again, just another hat trick, so don't expect a whole lot of honesty from that community. After all they don't want to lose their research grants.

Here is a link to so-called "transitional fossils" and you might note that none ever transformed into anything, they just "think" maybe they did. For example, since dogs wag their tails today they are likely “evolving” into a future helicopter type dogs. And that about sums up the logic being used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_tra...

Answer 3

1. Evolution does NOT state that matter came from nothing. You're not talking about Evolution when you say that. Evolution is simply the change in living things over time.

It does NOT talk about abiogensis (the beginning of life) which is a different topic.

It also does NOT talk about the creation of the universe, which is also a different topic.

Learn what the topic actually says, then come back.

2. There ARE transitional fossils. Honestly, you may firmly believe in creation but how can you ever have graduated high school without seeing any transitional fossils?

Try googling "transitional fossils".

better yet... here's a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And that link barely begins to cover all the known transitional fossils in existance.

You have some serious problems. You don't have the education to understand what it is you're trying to argue against. Education you should have received in high school. I suggest that its time to read some science textbooks. Even better, take some biology classes in a college.

Answer 4

Transitional fossils is an old favorite among creationists, but try to figure out what it is you're looking for (or asking us to present).

Species change much like languages do. A large enough population that is connected to each other will communicate together, and though the language slowly changes, it will do so everywhere. There are small differences in accent (New York english, Australian english etc) but they can still speak to each other with relative ease.

If a population was to become isolated for a longer period of time, the language of the now two populations will start to diverge, and eventually they will no longer be able to speak to each other. Language evolution is faster than biological evolution, so in a couple of hundred years the difference will be big. Of course, it's harder today because of mass communication. At no point does any population feel that they are speaking a "transitional" language.

Substitute "speak to each other" with "breed", and you have (more or less) biological evolution.

As for your actual question; evolution is a science and to find out what backs it up, you'll need to study evolutionary biology. This is not something pastors & priests tend to grasp, and this forum is a poor substitute for actual studies. Suffice to say, evolution has pretty much (well, I'm being polite) all of the evidence.

Abiogenesis (not Evolution) is the only process that can create life (i.e. self-replicating, DNA-like molecules, basically) from non-life (tonnes of organic matter, providing building blocks for those molecules), simply because that's what we call such a process!

Answer 5

1. "Evolution states that matter came from nothing"

wrong. It says that all matter was present before the big bacg as an infinitely dense point.

"life from non-life"
This is true and it's been demonstrated as possible in the laboratory

"humans from animals"
Humans are animals so you're not asking the right question

"Why is that evolution is the only process that can make life from non-life and humans themselves have never been able to make this happen"
I don't understand this. Why haven't humans been able to replicate billions of years of evoution in the 150 years since Darwins theory? Is that the question your asking? Hmm.

2. "Evolution uses fossils to back up it's theory. However, fossils are also what contradict evolution. For one, why are there no transitional fossils?"
Wrong. There are many examples of transitional fossils. You've been misinformed.

Please feel free to contact me if you like. I'll be happy to answer all of your questions honestly.

Answer 6

I am a Christian and have no problem with evolution. Further, I believe either you are ignorant and spouting off stuff you simply do not understand. Maybe you lack the math or you just look at a few words and think it must be true, or you are a liar and Satan is the Father of Lies. So for starters, the second law of thermodynamics applies to any closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. Energy is constantly being added by the Sun. The passage to lower energy states is the ordering process in biology. In other words, for entropy to work as energy is added, it needs to come to local order. In the biological processes this is called evolution. The second law of thermodynamics, if you view the solar system as a closed system (which it isn't either though it could be viewed as close), means that evolution should occur. The formula for the second law is the indefinite integral of 1/T dq = -N where T is absolute temperature, -N "equivalence-value" of all uncompensated transformations involved in a cyclical process, and dq is the change in the quantity of heat. This does not in any way preclude evolution. And, I would note, there are mathematical critics to the second law. It only applies to closed systems, but the vary act of measuring opens the system making it impossible to ever view if the law actually works. Second, there are no transitional fossils because evolution says all life is in continuous transition. All fossils are transitional fossils, including your bones someday. Science has never disproved evolution. There isn't a single valid, peer reviewed, bit of research to support that idea. There is no major church that accepts your point of view and probably none outside the United States. With everyone telling you that you are wrong, globally, both Christian and otherwise, why do you insist on remaining ignorant, is your faith that weak that you cannot accept the majesty of the universe? Is your God so primitive and weak that natural law cannot happen and magic mojo must? Do you really believe all they tell you in Church, when all the other churches say such a teaching is false? Please go to college and take biology courses, physics courses and math courses and teach your co-religionists so this can go away finally. One other note, there are quite a number of cases where biologists have seen macroevolution happen, where new species spontaneously formed. There is a large number of journal articles describing the creation of new species where they did not exist before. Further, humans have genetically altered species into completely new species, you can check the US Patent Office for those.

Answer 7

Evolution says nothing at all about the origin of matter. Evolution is a process that takes place in living things. Living things came into existence billions of years after matter did, and evolution did not begin until the first living things appeared.

There are a great many transitional fossils available. Do a little reading, get a few facts before you make such ludicrous statements.

Here's a good place to begin, for some simple, straightforward factual information ;

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

.

Answer 8

1) Evolution does NOT state that matter comes from non-matter. That is ABIOGENESIS. A separate theory altogether.
2) You do not know science.
3) Evolution is a theory and a fact.
4) Fossils do not contradict Evolution.
5) There ARE transitional fossils. Look them up.
6) Life really did evolve slowly.
7) No such thing as belief in Evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. It's not one someone has to have faith to believe in (i.e., believe without evidence).
8) Creationism has ZERO evidence and is highly improbable to have occurred.

Answer 9

Matter came from the same place you god came from if you believe in creation. Except we can not prove for you god but we can prove matter is real so that is where matter came from since you probably don't believe in the big bang. And life came from a burst of lightning hitting a high carbon- nitrogen-hydrogen concoction, making the first form of life.

Also fossils do not contradict, they support it, were do have transitional fossils, like Lucy, and we know how to connect the dot, and fill in gaps. If we see fossils of saber tooth tigers and there aren't any to day then what does that mean, they either evolved or die out which means another species evolved to take its place.

I don't believe in creation because in the beginning thing had to be simple and un-complex just like everything else does in the world, (babies aren't born adults and you do learn long division before learning how to add) so if god is real he can't be complex because that is un-logic.

Answer 10

you don't understand evolution.
1. evolution doesn't talk about 'matter' coming from nothing, it's a biological term. humans ARE animals, (and before you think it, we didn't come from monkeys, humans and apes/monkeys came from the same ancestor). as to the beginning of life.. i haven't studied it that indepth... it's a chemical thing. or perhaps it came in on a meteor or something.

2. the theory is that there were quick jumps along with slow evolution, and there are transitional fossils, just not of everything. not all remains were fossilized, the conditions had to be right; most decomposed

logic backs it up, but does not back up creationism. creationism is just not plausible to me and there's fossil, geological, astronomical, etc etc evidence against it.