which has been proven the most...creationism or evolution....I'm new at this...any references will be?

Question

appreaciated

Answer 1

Obviously evolution. Evolution is as good as fact to educated people. We have fossils, DNA evidence, and vestigial structures. Creationism isn't even considered a theory, it's considered a belief because it has 0 proof.

Answer 2

Evolution has the most evidence.

Creationism is missing the key piece of evidence: direct evidence of the Creator(s). If you're a Biblical Creationist, the only source that credits the god of Abraham with creation of the heavens and Earth is Moses -- and he's known to be unreliable since we know he exaggerated the extent of the Great Flood.

Answer 3

There are millions of pieces of strong evidence in scientist's labs all over the world to support evolution. From skeletons of beings too apelike to be classed as humans, and those that are too human-like to be classed as apes, The missing link that the church is forever claiming has not been found.
The only thing going for creation is what some very superstitious people of questionable background and knowledge scribbled down to thousand years ago

Answer 4

Evolution has the most evidence. The people who say otherwise, you'll notice, are those who have a gross misunderstanding about evolution, how science works, or feel that the science is a threat to their religion.

Now, this is not to say that "therefore God doesn't exist". Evolution does not say anything about deity, one way or another. Believing in God and siding with "creationists" are two different things. There are many God-believers who accept evolution.

"Creationism" however is not a science; it is a theocratic political campaign aimed at trying to teach a specific religion in science classes. It claims that the world and all living creatures were created as exactly described in the Bible's book of Genesis. It's only "evidence" is a collection of fault attempts at trying to find loopholes in evolution (which, even if they were successful, still wouldn't prove creationism).

I suggest reading these articles, which cover an intro to evolution, common misconceptions, futher info about evolution, and why evolution does not conflct with "God" belief:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Feel free to compare these with what creationist websites say. Talkorigins.org actually posts links to them. Not so with the creationist sites, I've noticed. But you can find just about all of their points debunked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Keep in mind that evolution is an extensive science, and there's no way to put everything there is to know about it one simple paragraph of layman's terms. I certainly had to learn some new vocabulary words along the way.

Answer 5

Put it this way. There are more than 500 000 scientists in the US. 7 years ago The Discovery Institute started gathering signatures of those scientists that believed in creationism. So far they have collected about 800.

The other 499 200+ obviously reject creationism.

Answer 6

Neither one can be proven in the lab. But all you need to realize creation is a pair of eyes to see.

You can also learn more here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/


By the way, R&S is the only place on Y!A where you get a thumbs down for just providing relevant information.

Answer 7

Micro-evolution, that is evolution within a species can be proven. But macro-evolution, the idea that a one celled creature went on to become a fish that went on to become an amphibian that went on to become a reptile that went on to become a mammal that resulted in human beings is a huge house of cards based upon scientific guess work about how it might possibly have happened.

All of the so called "evidence" is merely a lot of facts strung together with "just so" stories about how something could have happened. While the evidence for Creation is found in the evidence that the Bible is a book of divine origin as demonstrated by A W Pink on this link http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/divine.htm

The argument for Intelligent Design, while it cannot be proved for the same reason that macro-evolution cannot be proved since we can't measure and test it in a laboratory and no one was around to document the progession of life on this planet, does pose a serious challenge to the idea that a whole lot of time + a lot of lucky chance mutations + natural selection = all of the complex coded information that makes up even a single living cell.

"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."4

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

An elegant design is more than the parts themselves: it involves information. It requires information input external to the design itself - and the deliberate involvement of a Designer.

The Darwinians cannot explain the origin of life because they cannot account for the origin of information. The technology that provides language - semantics and syntax, for example - is quite distinct from the technology of the ink and paper it may be written on. The physical features of the circuits in a computer provide no clue about the design of the software that resides within it.

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it!

If all the chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times

Answer 8

--NEITHER HAS , because the creationist view is not the view of the Bible & Evolution is not to be found supported by any of the factual sciences!

UPDATE:
*** w86 9/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***

▪ Is there a distinction between “creation” and “creationism”?
--Yes, there is. The word “creation,” appearing some 18 times in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, properly refers to Jehovah’s creative activity. (See, for example, Romans 1:20; 8:21; 2 Corinthians 5:17) The term “creationism” is not found in the Bible.
--Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines “creation” as “the act of creating,” and “creationism” as “a doctrine or theory of creation.” The same dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory—often used disparagingly.”
--In these 1980’s, “creationism” has become a true “ism” because of its adoption by political pressure groups, such as the Moral Majority. It is no longer a neutral term, but embodies extreme fundamentalist views of the Bible, such as the view that God created the earth and everything upon it in six days of 24 hours each. There are now more than 350 books in circulation setting out such “creationism” dogma. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the unreasonable theories of “creationism” in favor of what the Bible really teaches about “creation.”

--HOW LONG Were the Creative Days?

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?
--No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long."

ON EVOLUTION:
*** Multiple Articles ***

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on—all drum this evolution-is-a-fact litany into the public mind. Recently, however, The New York Times reported that California’s school board has issued guidelines for science textbooks that apparently de-emphasize teaching evolution as a fact.—November 10, 1989.

--Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

Answer 9

It all depends if you use and believe the bible is also a science text book.

Your answer to the above statement will make all the difference in your understanding of evolution.

Answer 10

Creationism can not be proven, it has not been proven at all, evolution has never been 100% PROVEN, because it's considered a theory. But creationism is thrown out of any respectable scientific arguement. Creationism is simply, for lack of a better word, unreasonable.