Creation vs. Evolution: Which is more reasonable?

Question

This proves Creation is more reasonable.

http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.htm#15.

Answer 1

To quote Lewis Black, "We have the fossils. We win."

Here's the thing... there's support for the theory of evolution, whereas there is not even the tiniest scrap of support for "Creationism".

So. Let's all embrace the Scientific Method and reality and put creationism where it belongs... in the idiot bucket.

Most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found. A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling.

A supernatural explanation is for the people using CAVE MAN logic to explain the unknown.

Answer 2

The document you linked to is a complete crock! It doesn't prove that creation is more reasonable, it just proves creationists are intellectually dishonest.

You talk about "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as though they were different things but they are not! That's like saying that no matter how many millimetres you measured, they would never, ever add up to a kilometre!

Population growth rates have changed over the years. Ancient civilisations didn't leave written records because they were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Stars are appearing all the time, and the fact that four of them came into existence about 10000 years ago proves nothing about anything except those four stars. Volcanic matter is continuously being melted from the inside, ejected and solidifying on the outside. Dissolved matter is abstracted from sea water by shellfish and cannot redissolve from their shells. Need I go on?

Creation is completely unreasonable, because where did your imagined creator come from? Surely whatever process you invoke to explain a creator, could equally account for a pre-created universe?

Answer 3

I will not bother to go into details because any person who has read up anything about evolution WILL know what a load of rubbish the article is. The article is, at best erroneous at worse misleading lies.

I will just say, there are so many dating systems which point to all the earth being 4.3 billion years and humans being about 2 >5 million years.

We share 97% of our genes with chimps

Although not perfect - fossils show evolutionary development

For creationalism to be true:
- God would have to be a lier because of all the evidence
- God would have to be part chimp because it is said we are made in his image and we are 97% simpler to chimp.

time would have had to have suddenly slowed to a billionth do account for all the discrepancies in creationalism.

ALL of science will MUST be wrong - including the way your car works.

ALL criminals must be released from jail because a greater level factual integrity is applied to the evidence of evolution that most criminal trials.

Creationalism is just another myth - evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

Answer 4

No, it proves that creationists lie a lot more than scientists do.

The article you cite contains numerous factual errors, as well as so many glaring logical errors that I will make no attempt to explain all of them to you in this short response. If you are intellectually honest, and have an actual desire to know the truth and understand the reasons that this article is completely wrong, please send me an e-mail and I will actually go through a detailed explanation with you, because I'm a nice guy. But I won't do it here, because too many people just ignore it and it ends up being a colossal waist of my time.

If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant like most do and believe that this article has some kind of point, ignore my response and choose an answer that agrees with your preconceived opinions.

Answer 5

Evolution is the most reasonable in that it is not only an explanation of how species came to be as they are now, it also offers a mechanism for how species changed. Creationism simply says that species were created, and offers no mechanism for that creation other than "god" but says nothing about how god created things. This is no explanation at all. REASONABLENESS means use of reason.

Answer 6

What makes you think that the version of creation that you propose is any more reasonable than this one:
http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/CITE/v_creation.htm
or this one:
http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html
or any of these ones:
http://www.crystalinks.com/nativeamcreation.html
?

Now let's examine some of the points in the (disingenuous if not outright mendacious) article to which you linked.

Population Growth: There are two main events that have affected the rate of population growth. The more recent was the First Industrial Revolution which began about 250 years ago in the valley that I call Home. Before that, the other major event that affected population growth was the Agricultural Revolution (or Zeroth Industrial Revolution). This took place around 10000 years ago and marked the transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes to settled farming communities.

Before IR0, the population would have remained fairly static with fractional growth, as a hunter-gatherer lifestyle necessarily requires a lot of land per person and has a high mortality rate. After IR0, chances of survival were significantly improved. Instead of going out hunting for food, the first farmers now only had to fetch it from the fields.

From IR0 to IR1 the population grew, albeit more slowly than today. Life was still highly labour-intensive. IR1 brought mass-production and *should have* ushered in an age of abundance, bringing an end to the age of scarcity. (Unfortunately, there were too many rich and powerful people who stood to gain from the maintenance of scarcity.) However, with machines to do much of the work, people were able to concentrate on other matters besides the mere mechanics of day-to-day survival; and a larger population could be sustained through more efficient use of resources.

Ancient Civilisations: The development of writing came after IR0. Before then, the nomadic hunter-gatherer populations relied on word-of-mouth to pass on their traditions. Recording history is a luxury which was not available to Cavemen.

Comets: Yes, comets diminish in size with each turn around a star. There is no reason to suppose they are not being regenerated. Further research is required to determine where they are coming from.

Orion Nebula: This is widely recognised by astronomers to be a fertile breeding-ground for new stars. It is entirely likely that four stars emerged there about 10000 years ago (By The Way, *real* scientists *don't* put commas between thousands and hundreds -- it's one of the ways you can spot a fake scientist) and began moving apart. This tells us no more about the age of the Earth than the sighting of a newborn baby in a shopping centre tells us about the ages of people in the next city.

Volcanoes: Please look up "reflux" in an A-level chemistry textbook. This is a laboratory technique where a single-necked boiling flask is set up with a condenser pointing vertically upward, and heated from below. The vapours rising from the flask condense on the inner walls of the condenser and are returned to the flask. Liquid reagents may thus be maintained for long periods at or near boiling temperature without loss by evaporation. This can be used for simple solvent extraction (where the solubility is not so low as to require the use of a Soxhlet extractor) or to maintain a slow chemical reaction.

The molten lava is getting continuously recycled!

Also, your definition of "juvenile water" is misleading. For one thing, there is *no way* to tell how long the two hydrogen atoms in a water molecule have been bonded to the oxygen atom. Juvenile water has not been "trapped underground for years" but is formed by chemical reactions within and around the volcano.

Impurities in the Oceans: You fail to account for certain phenomena. Firstly, the finite solubility of minerals. Secondly, abstraction of minerals from the ocean. Sea-creatures absorb minerals. Some are eaten by birds of prey or land-based predators. The remains of some are preserved on the ocean floor and covered by sand and silt, preventing the redissolution of the minerals they contain.

Then there's still the Biggie: How do you account for the existence of a creator? And why couldn't whatever process you propose to account for the existence of a creator, equally be proposed to account for the existence of a ready-created universe?

Answer 7

Your subtitle shows you have a bias. but to answer I'd say creation. evolution is flawed in that it can only explain the process of going from a former state to a latter due to changes in one's environment. it cannot answer how the original thing came into existence. suppose (A) exists and due to changes it turns into (B). this transition is evolution. however, evolution doesn't explain where (A) came from. also, evolution presupposes the existence of (A) in order for it to change to (B).
Creation is more reasonable because everything we use is a result of someone's creativity. the keyboard i'm typing on didn't always exist. it came into being through someone's thought process. it took a design schematic and intelligence to bring this keyboard from thought to manifestation. thus a keyboard was created. so, are other things we use like cars, chairs, cell phones. pencils, pens. paper, etc. it not unreasonable to believe that the world was created as well as man.

Answer 8

you dont take into account that creation is evoloution.
think about it

and im gonna say here that i do believe in god bt i dont have any religeon if you understand me.

if u ask me tho the world was made by an imperfect god.
who designed evoloution . now this is how I think evolotion was designed

theres a boat in a river going down a waterfall

the boat is evolotion the rive is time and the waterfull is gods final destination/purpose etc.

you can steer the boat and keep it away from the water fall you can go left and right but ultimatly you end up down the waterfall.

you can evolve diffrent you can do things that god has not designed but in the end you are flollowing his path in the wider picture

Answer 9

Evolution. Creation implies the existence of a deity, which is not provable and counterintuitive to logic. Evolution requires no such assumption and however unlikely it must therefore be the most reasonable.

Answer 10

Creation, maybe. Evolution definitely not in the last year there has been a significant improvement in despiting Darwin's theory
and these scientist will soon bring it down.