Evolution vs. Creationism?

Question

How is evolution false and creationism true? Considering how evolution is a change in DNA over time. Please give one fact (not bible related, or "look around you") that proves creationism is real, and one fact that proves evolution false. Two SEPARATE answers. Not one that just proves evolution is false, and doesn't back up creationism at all. Prove to me that creationism is real.

Also, this is for my English III Research Paper (I chose the topic). I'm having a hard time finding evidence online and in books that support creationism.
I'm not sure if I can use magic as something that supports creationism...

Fact for the evidence of Creation:

It is physically impossible for something to be produced from nothing.


The above is proof that creationism is false

Answer 1

Fact for the evidence of Creation:

It is physically impossible for something to be produced from nothing.

Fact against the theory of Evolution:

Unearthed fossils have not provided the necessary connecting links between all species.

EDIT:

The questioner said: "The above is proof that creationism is false"

My question: "Then how was the universe and everything in it come to be produced from nothing?"

Answer 2

Might I suggest choosing a different topic if this isn't for a Christian school? Topics like this usually don't sell well and grades are important too.

Limiting it to one reason is kind of hard. Here are my reasons though.

1. One evidence evolution is false, because the archaeologists lie. If we find out, they cover it up with another lie.
Java Man was the skull of a gibbon
Nebraska Man was the tooth of a pig
Piltdown Man was an orangutan

2. One evidence that creationism is true is the fossil record. Some organisms are shown to never change. There isn't slow drifts between species shown. The latest theory I heard of is punctual equilibrium, but I would think that would be able to be observed. They try to connect the dots with similar species and it is getting really complex. We see species dying out and not new ones forming. There are complex species in the early years of the fossil record.

Answer 3

1) To prove creationism true - study the cell. All the complex processes that go on in a cell. The replication of DNA. The processes of transcription and translation. These processes are extremely complex and essentially the same in all organisms with the usage of some different chemicals. There is no true simpler form of any of these processes.

2) I accept fully the idea of microevolution. However for macroevolution much of the evidence is based upon the fossil record. The fossil record relies upon morphology to determine relatedness. Morphology has been shown to be a poor indicator of relatedness.

2 a) While genomic research reveals relationships between organisms if you are willing to accept the possibility of a creator this evidence can support both views. All organisms share the same basic genetic code. The same codons code for the same amino acids in almost all organisms (there are a few small exceptions such as multiple codons for tryptophan in some bacteria). But the code is basically the same for all. Does this prove common descent? It could but it can also point to a common creator. A person who creates things often uses the same techniques. For instance a person in construction will use many of the same techniques whether they are building a house or an office building. Do you see the similarity.

Answer 4

If you're writing a paper on the subject, there's a few things you had better make clear first.

1) The fact of evolution is that change occurs in groups of living organisms over time. The theory of evolution is the best natural explanation as to how the process occurs. All other explanations (i.e., scientific theories) of the number and variety of organisms on this Earth are pretty much moot at this point, with the literal tons of evidence that *support* the theory. (Note that I said support and not prove. There is a huge fundamental difference there.)

2) The theory of evolution is science. The theory of creationism is not. The theory of evolution takes a fact that can be proven (that organisms change over time) and tries to explain why it occurs. The theory of creationism starts with an assumption that >>>cannot be proven<<< (that God created everything) and then tries to explain things based on something that may or may not be true. You can believe with all your heart that God created everything, but there is no way you can scientifically prove it.

3) The theory of creationism (and I'm using the term theory loosely here) is the same as the theory of intelligent design, minus the fact that any specific God is involved. So any argument that is used by ID is the same as any argument that can be used by creationists. But neither are good science, because they start with one major assumption (that I explained above).

4) Scientifically, creationism (and ID) have almost no leg to stand on. However, philosophically, the theory of evolution and creationism are on much more equal footing. If you don't need the science behind evolution (and the non-science behind creationism), then you can argue both equally...although, I'm not sure what the point would be.

Edit: Cap'n Crunch--I'm sorry to disagree with you and your completely unscientific source (answersingenesis.org is a creationism web site with almost no scientific basis). Evolution is a fact. The fact is that groups of living organisms change over time. If they don't change, they die out. Those facts are not disputable. Facts are facts, and evolution is an observable and undeniable fact. The theory of evolution, or how the process occurs, is what is debatable, but becomes less and less so with each new day. The basics of the theory are that 1) every organism can reproduce; 2) every organism's DNA is capable of undergoing mutations; and 3) natural selection forces cause changes in the reproductive success of organisms based on the amount and type of mutations that have taken a foothold in the population. There's not a whole lot there for you to scientifically disagree with, either.

Irreducible complexity is not science; it is philosophical objection. Yes, I don't deny that a cell is very complex (a hair is several degrees less complex). But that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened by chance. In fact, given that the same processes that formed the cell could have been going on within millions of different galaxies, upon millions of different planets within each of those galaxies, and millions of times on each planet every second, the odds are likely that a self-replicating cell would arise by chance.

By the way, the only time random chance ever plays a part in evolution is during mutation.

Also by the way, Pasteur did not come up with a new law of any kind. He just showed that abiogenesis did not occur in multicellular organisms. He proved that flies do not arise from spoiled meat spontaneously. Amino acids and nucleic acids are organic molecules, not living things, and are found to a) arise spontaneously given the correct conditions and raw materials, and b) can, under some circumstances, reproduce themselves.

I could go on, but I have to visit a sick friend in the hospital.

Edit #2: carlita--I don't know what you think science is, but there hasn't been one shred of scientific evidence that "disproves" evolution, and certainly none given on this thread.

And, actually, if creationists put as much time into trying to scientifically "prove" their own version rather than try to tear apart evolution, then maybe they would have made some scientific progress. As it stands, there is almost no scientific evidence that is repeatable and has been peer reviewed that backs creationism. At least, I've not heard of any. If there is some, please enlighten me. In other words, the point *is* to "prove" creationism (or, at least, should be, if creationists want any play in the scientific arena). You don't prove that your theory is correct by trying to knock down a competing theory. That's inane.

I'm sure you don't know what the word faith means, because you are using it incorrectly (as well as proof, but I'll come back to that in a minute). Faith means to believe in something with a lack of or insufficient evidence. There is no scientific basis for creationism, because it has no scientific evidence to back it. It has philosophical justification, and that's fine, but don't call it science. On the other side of the token, the theory of evolution takes no faith to believe because there is no lack of evidence (by the way, if you'd like some of the evidence, contact me). There is no lack of or insufficient evidence for it.

As for proof, you don't have proofs in science. That's a math and legal term. You have evidence. Evidence is ovbservable facts and repeatable experiments that support theories. Proof means that something can be proven without a doubt. Proof implies there is a finite system about which we can know all facets. Evidence implies that we don't know everything about everything (and it may be that we can never know). There is a very important distinction there, and you will never hear a scientist say "This proves the theory of evolution is true." You will always hear them say "This is another piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution", or "This is a piece of evidence that seems to contradict evolution."

I'm also sorry that you think that if evolution is true (which it is, only the theory is thrown into question by creationists), our lives have no meaning. It doesn't have to be. You don't have to think of yourself as being "created" to give life value and meaning. And there most certainly is evidence that feelings, emotions, and desires have evolutionary origins.

Answer 5

Look up www.answersingenesis.org and search for "genetics: no friend of evolution". My first thought to why evolution is false is Louis Pasteur's Scientific Law which is "all life comes from life." That puts evolution on the spot. My reason for creation being true is because of all the perfectness around me in a sinful world. You can tell just by looking at a cell! Do you know how complex a hair is? And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Look at space and you'll find that we are perfectly positioned in our galaxy to be safe from supernovas and still observe them! And to think that it all happened by chance? I'd say you'd be out of your mind to do so. And for the record to the lovely person that is above me: Evolution is a theory. Not fact. And if I may point out a flaw with his thinking, Evolution is just as big of an assumption (if not bigger) of random chance (1/1E234xinfinty) that our world became as it is today a billion years ago.

Answer 6

You ask for "proof." As Jim McGuiggas has said, "'Proof' is one of those words. 'Proof' in math isn't the same as proof in history or in interpresonal relationsihps or in bilogy or in any one of a host of other disciplines. Ask a child (or a husband or a father or a friend) to 'prove' the beloved really loves them and it isn't possible. Even if it could be 'proved', the child may not be able to make the case well enough to convince the critic. In this case it would be the child's inability that would be the problem and not that the claim couldn't be 'proved.' The trouble with critics is that often they can't tell the difference between someone being unable to prove it and the 'prove-ability' of the claim. In addition, more often than not they don't know what kind of 'proof' is required in the various disciplines. How do you 'prove' that Shakespeare is a better writer than Jackie Collins? How do you prove that Beethoven was a greater music-maker than someone who bangs out a four-chord song?"

Anyway, there are plenty of websites that are dedicated to giving evidence along those lines:
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.apologeticspress.org
http://www.icr.org
http://www.trueorigin.org
http://crev.info
http://www.detectingdesign.com

Answer 7

There are many things you could look at, but consider this.

Evolution says we all evolved from very primitive, single celled organisms. Evolutionists themselves say that for a new organism to evolve is an extremely rare event.

So, how did single celled, a-sexual organisms evolve into sexual organisms? How did an organism that divided to reproduce evolve into a pair of male and female organisms?

For this to happen, this rare evolutionary process, an accident of nature, cannot just happen once, but it has to happen at least twice, at the same place, at the same time. Both of these organisms must evolve healthy, able to survive and reproduce, at least one has to evolve male, and at least one female, AND they have to be completely genetically compatible.

It is hard to believe all of these accidents could happen!

Evolutionists have a hard time explaining the transition from a-sexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.

Also consider this:

The human body is a very complex system. Observe any part and it would be amazing for it to evolve alone, but put the body together, and the odds of accidental evolution is astronomical!

Consider the lungs. The oxygen comes into the lungs and into the smallest air passages, this oxygen goes through the walls into the blood. At the same time, carbon dioxide is traveling through this membrane from the blood into the lungs to be exhaled. This exact same thing continues as long as you are alive.

If, however, this process were to stop for just six minutes, then you would be dead.

If evolution were true, then this one simple organ would have to evolve in less than 6 minutes or the organism would not survive. How did the first lungs evolve in less than six minutes?

Evolution also has a difficult (impossible) time explaining how the first life began. The theory says that a mixture of non-living chemicals produced a very primitive life. The problem is, we have never observed life coming from non-living matter! In fact, our scientists cannot even produce simple amino acids from non-living material. We can’t even produce something like a blood substitute that works like blood does. So, how did this happen by accident?

It is much more logical to believe that life was created!

Answer 8

Evolution is not change in DNA over time. That is Genetics, which means downward copying mistakes.

Evolution is defined as adding new Genetic information, lots of it, to less complex life forms, to make more complex life forms. Evolution is spontaneous generation, first from rocks, eventually to us.

Louis Pasteur proved Spontaneous Generation wrong, as reported in a lecture in 1862. Evolution is therefore impossible.

DNA has lots of information. Information requires intelligence, like if you wrote 500 bestsellers. The fossil record shows complex, fully formed phyla appearing suddenly, without transitional forms. Intelligence to make DNA had to come from somewhere. Creation is the best specific explanation.

Answer 9

Why 2 answers is when is sufficient? Christians who do not understand science are completely justified in taking that as absolute proof that evolution is false, and ergo that creationism is true. What argument could be more powerful?

Answer 10

im not going to give any more scientific reasons against evolution because i believe they have already been given, so id like to take a different look.

look, the point here is not to prove creationism so much, but rather to disprove evolution. even if creationism is not true, evolution is not possible.

i must applaud you if you believe in evolution because, honestly, it takes MUCH more faith to believe in evolution than creation. and the only reason one would do so is because they don't want to admit at the possibility of a God. I'm sorry, but its true. it bothers me that they teach evolution as fact. its JUST a theory! both sides should at least be taught, so that the listener may decide for themselves.

i don't believe in evolution. i just cant. at least creation gives me meaning. i mean... if evolution is correct, then we're basically all just worthless flesh. what does that mean for me? that im nothing? i like thinking im valuable. creation, at least, gives me worth and purpose. love, joy, compassion... evolution can't account for the emotions, desires, and passions we feel.