Evolution or Creation?

Question

There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

Just thought some people would like to read this

I'm for Creation by the way, this is mostly against evolution.

Answer 1

In a long string of erroneous ideas, I'll pick one.

Humans have been able to create one species from another; the domestic sheep is no longer able to breed successfully with the mouflon, the stock from which domestic sheep came. New species.

Answer 2

Some people may very well like to read this, but everything you said has been refuted. Michael Behe hasn't produced a peer reviewed scientific paper in years, and his "irreducible complexity" theory has been disproven. The ability to create life from non-life is NOT evolution, it is something called "abiogenesis", and just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it won't happen.

You claim that the evidence of evolution is hoaxes and frauds, but the truth is that the National Academy for the Advancement of Science says evolution is very real because of the vast collection of information that has been collected, and an analyis and understanding of how DNA works makes DNA not only believable, but inevitable. To say that just because something is staggeringly complex that it MUST favor creation is false - you can build incredibly complex machines using very simple parts. Your arguments show a very large misunderstanding of what evolution REALLY is, and what it isn't. You need further education on the subject before you make these kinds of statements, because it shows that you don't know your subject well at all.

And by the way, if someone could perform surgery on chromosomes they COULD theoretically transform something into another species. Evolution does this a little tiny piece of the chromosome at a time over a very long period of time, which eventually results in a new species, so the argument that no species has ever turned into another species is also false. Science isn't based on what you want to be true - science is based on what really IS testable time and time again, and that is eventually accepted as being true because it makes sense to do so. For you to say "God did it" is not science - it is religion, and it is NOT the same thing.

Answer 3

Excellent opinions from all members above. Congratulations on your scholarship. However there still seems to be some confusion about the two words "creation" and "evolution" and both can be very simply explained so that both opinions are satisfied. First "Creation", World experts have come with a delineation of "creation". It is : Since the universe is something, it had to have a "creator", not a person but a force. Let us call it : The Architect of the Universe There you have it, just a force with no chosen people, no favorties, just a creative force. Now this "universe" can change over time, break into galaxies and planets, be covered with water, allow simple chemical reactions to fuse together into primitive life forms which "evolve" into more complicated life forms, into plants and animals and finally human life forms. There you have it, creation by the architect of the Universe and "evolution" or change of all things in that universe. This explanation has always satisfied science followers like myself and religious followers who need a spiritual component in their lives in order to seek meaning and truth.

Answer 4

And these are the types of ramblings you get when a person doesn't look at both sides of the argument. Irriducible Complexity has already been proven wrong. And also, if there are some things that can't be explained, give scientists more time to figure it out. The problem with you creationist is that you all want the answers right away and when one can't be provided immediatly you all fill the gap of knowledge with the skydaddy.

Finally, trying to prove evolution wrong so that people can believe in god by default isn't the right way to go.

Answer 5

There is a massive amount of evidence in favor of evolution and almost no convincing evidence against it. Most evidence against it comes from people simply not understanding how evolution works, and thus is very frustrating to try to refute.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence in favor of creationism or the existence of God.

As a scientist, I have an obligation to go with the scientific evidence. As a human being, you are free to choose whichever method you want, faith or reason, of trying to find truth. But please understand that from my viewpoint, just because you don't understand how evolution works doesn't mean that the alternative explanation you get from religious dogma must be correct.

Sorry if this comes off as antagonistic or anything. Its just annoying when people go to creationist websites and get creationist "scientific" evidence that evolution could not happen. Of course if that is the evidence you are looking for, that's what you'll find. But try taking a college course on the subject to better understand what you are claiming is a farce that is fooling the entire scientific community and most thinking people. At the very least, you'll be able to better criticize it.

Answer 6

I hate it when people say that there is no evidence of evolution. Or that the system is so complex only Santa could have made it up. Theres A MILLION times more evidence of Evolution that there is of the existence of god,, and im not talking about the million idiots that quote him like he was a philosopher. Some evidence of evolution are the beginning cells themselves, Prokaryote, and Eukaryotes. gives you the basis of evolution and how the complexity could have started, then we have fossils that date back to prehuman times. and that is not a theory or based on faith, that is a chemical test that studies carbon to set a time table. There are many fossils of prehumans, We have about 8 different species of prehumans.( Australopithecus Afarensis or "Lucy" (1974) Even in the evolution of specifically the mammal, We have all the same bones, but in some species, they have fused together to make a fin or a paw. You need to study some biology, or maybe watch the discovery channel.

Answer 7

Wow that was a lot to read...... I dont think you know and understand enough about evolution and biology to present a valid arguement to this. Organism is made up of cells and cells are essentially chemical elements interacting but I dont see how that can be used as an arguement point against Darwin theory of evolution. Science have many aspects and techniques to conduct study. As for body part, we can for example compares structure and function, and compares embryo development to show linkage between different species. About the lack of transitional form in fossil. Fossil formation required the right environments and conditions of the organism body when it die to be able to form fossil and the odd of which is just like winning the Lotto.... VERY WEIRD and scientists can't survey every centimeter of the Earth for fossil so hence they could exist out there but haven't been discovered yet !!!
Now on to DNA, RNA and protein synthesis..... none of this was known during the DARWIN's tiem because they didnt have the technology back then. Did people know about the computer 40 yrs ago better yet the INTERNET in which u used to ask this question???????????? is randomness that accumulated over million years of evolution that generate the complex libraries of information in complex organism!!! Life started as a simple prokaryote cell that contain little RNA for extremely simple functions. The libraries of infomation is developed over millions of years. Just like cancer, a person can be born healthy and doesnt have a family history of cancer, but in his lifetime as he ages and exposes himself to factors that accumulates inside his body and causes cancer formation. Its not very convincing to simply argue something as false just because you dont comprehend it.

Answer 8

1) If you could produce any of it, you could win the Nobel Prize. No? I didn't think so.

2) Behe was proved wrong in a court of law and determined to be wrong and a liar by a conservative judge appointed by Bush.

3) Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Are you going to ask about the big bang theory next?

4) Yeah, and Darwin figured it out anyway. Now we just have more evidence to prove him right. Sorry, complexity doens't mean your god did it. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean no one can.

Answer 9

Michael Behe is an outspoken intelligent design advocate and his view is strongly contested by the scientific community. Find someone more credible to lean on when grasping for common sense.

Answer 10

Basically, you are trying to disprove science with science. But that's not really what creationism is all about, is it?
And what makes you think that cell structures would have to be simple enough for humans to understand? Life has been evolving for billions of years. There have been many millennia for such complexity to form.