Creationists and evolutionists, please lay down your best arguments ?

Question

Back it up with sources. No bible quotes, your arguments must be on a common sense scientific level. Based on biology, and discoveries made though archeology.

Answer 1

Ironically, @Jesus Saves provides the best evidence in favor of evolution.



That is, because of the massive amount of evidence in support of evolution, all the promoters of creationism can do in their attempts to refute evolution is to LIE!



And ignorant, gullible, superstitious, mindless lay creationists just lap up those lies and repeat them here on Y!A.



But here is another ironic example of evidence for evolution, as provided by CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College (and @Jesus Saves, and the other ignorant lay creationists who answered your question, should pay particular attention).



"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.



"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)



"Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory."



But, of course, since he is a creationist, he then he goes on to say:



"That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."



http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html



So there you have it. The Bible is the word of god, period, and the facts be damned. And that is the attitude of creationists regardless of whether they know anything about the evidence for evolution or not.



But, since those statements about evolution are coming from an informed creationist scholar, I submit them as the best arguments for evolution.





Added



@Jesus Saves, I did NOT call you a liar!



I said the promoters of creationism (that is those who put out the creationist web sites and books) are the liars, and the ignorant, gullible, superstitious, mindless lay creationists just lap up those lies and repeat them here on Y!A.



Now which group of creationists do you think you belong to?



And those Christians under fire blogs that you posted are some of the most stupid, idiotic, bald-faced lying creationist web pages I have ever seen, and they prove my case quite well, thank you!



Added



Because you seem to be pushing those Christians under fire blogs, the thought just came to me that perhaps YOU are the one who created them. In which case you belong to both groups.



ADDED



I just checked your profile! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CREATED THOSE IDIOTIC CHRISTIANS UNDER FIRE BLOGS!



What'd ya know!!



Added



It is apparent that you just visited other creationist web sites and picked up the bald-faced lies you found in them and posted them in your blog.



I would suggest that you carefully read what I posted above from CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, the Research/Associate Professor of Science at Christian-based Bryon College.



Added



For refutation of the idiotic nonsense in those blogs and in your posting here, see my answers to these questions.



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20110101080321AAOfNCQ



I think I am about to my text limit in this response. All I have to say is that every single one of your other arguments is equally invalid as the ones I cover in the above links.





Added



This site pretty well covers most of your stupid arguments and more besides. If you go through them and pay attention to them, maybe you will learn better than to continue to make the stupid arguments you have been making.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Answer 2

Creationist:



In 2008, Professor of biology alexandre meinesz highlighted the dilemma. he stated that over the last 50 years " no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction."



What does this evidence reveal?

where do babies come from? is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from non-living chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?



Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together-DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) , RNA ( ribonucleic acid), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance?

Answer 3

The characteristics of different animals can easily be traced back to family trees, which correspond very well to the fossil record and to the DNA evidence. All of this is freely available to anyone willing to research it. There is little point in me posting dozens of links here.



You have your mammals branch, for example, which share a number of different characteristics, among them the ability to regulate body temperature and the production of milk. We also have fossils of several mamalian reptiles, the transitional species that creationists keep claiming don't exist despite the fact we have, in fact found them; lots of them. These reptiles produced milk and had started going down the road to being fully warm-blooded.



The biological characteristics of mammals, to keep going with the same example (it could have been birds or amphibians - the evidence is there as well), are constant and can also be traced through different sub-branches. Whales are mammals and not fish. We know this because of different characteristics that whales have which distinguish them from fish, one of the most remarkable ones being the presence of finger bones beneath their fins. You want transitional species? A seal is a present-day, living example of what a mammal gradually returning to aquatic life would look like. It would take too long to expose here and I'm not an expert anyway, but the study of the bone structure of these animals is also consistent with their ancestry.



Furthermore, we now have the DNA evidence, which shows that the genetic code is consistent among evolution lines. There isn't actually that much difference between the DNA of a chimpanzee and that of a man. If memory serves me right, we're talking about a 98 - 99 % match.

Answer 4

Creation is a one-time, unobservable, unrepeatable occurrence and as such, cannot be either scientifically verified or discounted. You either believe it occurred as laid down in the Bible or you don't. When taking into consideration that the Bible account does not negate evolution or an old earth, I fail to see why we spend so much time debating the issue.

Answer 5

I have one good argument on the side of Evolution.



Skulls which were related to the historic and present human family tree. And were compared and related on DNA. DNA is used in courts of law to convict murderers so it is good enough for me. If it is good enough for the law of the WORLD then it is good enough for me.



Skulls have been dug up around the world from Africa to Europe and using DNA sampling we have related them to the human family but simply looking at them you know they are related. Like looking at a baby and saying it has the dads eyes.



These skulls all of which are of the same tree of life IE human. Increase in volume capacity as they go on. Now if we also merge DNA sampling with carbon dating to give these skulls an age and link this with historic findings of other things cave paintings etc when fire was first discovered etc.



If you do this you will find that as brain capacity of the skulls increases so did our understanding of technology at the time. This makes perfect sense a bigger brain means more processing power it also means more storage. It also means we are capable of more independent and reasoning thought. These skulls combined with carbon dating tie in perfectly with the fact that as time goes on we got more clever and this shows the current human skull has the biggest volume and we are currently the smartest animal out of all our ancestors.



I have no sources for this but I know it through documented programs but I will look for sources and If I find any I will amend my answer.

Answer 6

"Back it up with sources."?

" No bible quotes,"?

" your arguments must be on a common sense scientific level. "

"Based on biology, "

"discoveries made though archeology."



You arnt making it very easy fot the poor Creationists, are you? :)

Answer 7

relaxing, yet this looks like a waste of time. in case you opt for "state-of-the-paintings" responses from creationists (and that i'm chuckling even suggesting this), hit up the BioLogos commencing place - That trainwreck from the in any different case fantastic recommendations of Francis Collins.

Answer 8

With the help of God we are creating one of evolutions most interesting things for man. Space flight and all the discoveries that has helped man evolve into what he is today. "One Small Step For Man. One giant footstep for mankind". I don't know if the is my best argument but it seems appropriate.

Answer 9

EVOLUTION BETCH.



Humans:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/?gclid=CNy04qKOyKwCFYFT7AodTUcGsQ



More on Humans: http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html#G



Darwin's Theory of Evolution: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/





And I ask again; Why dismiss this? There's obviously a crapload of evidence pointing to the confirmation of this theory. It's almost like dismissing the theory of relativity or how light works? 'Tis why I'm not a Creationist and I say: God Created the Big Bang

Peace~

Answer 10

Have a look at the work performed by Dr. Richard Lenski and his research team. They have observed evolution in action, by subjecting E. coli bacteria to circumstances of low nutrient supply. Using 12 strains that were originally genetically identical, only one of those strains mutated in such a way that it could utilise an untapped energy source in its surroundings. This new strain was capable of metabolising citrate ions in the presence of oxygen, which normal E. coli is incapable of.



http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/component/content/article/697-featured/3085-evolution-in-action-a-50000-generation-salute-to-charles-darwin

Answer 11

Maybe there is cause to take both sides, since no humans were there when it originated. Maybe a creator at the beginning, then a creator lets it slowly evolve over time. Mankind has a way of over thinking everything, and some how some way go about fighting for there right to be right

Answer 12

Wikipedia has a pretty good list of some of the evidences for evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Answer 13

The Scientific Theory of Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence ranging from biology, genetics, zoology, paleontology, and geology (among others).



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

Answer 14

http://believersunderfire.blogspot.com/search/label/Exposed





Evidence #1

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evidence #2

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.



17 evidences against evolution bull ****





1. Moon Dust

2. Magnetic Field

3. Fossil Record

4. Embryonic Recapitulation

5. Probability

6. Second Law of Thermodynamics

7. Vestigial Organs

8. Fossil and Fossil Fuel Formation

9. Punctuated Equilibria

10. Homology/Molecular Biology

11. Dating Methods

12. Dinosaurs

13. Sun's Diameter

14. Nile River's Overflow

15. Earth's Rotation

16. Written Record

17. The Bible



Andy,the evolution crusher





@Lighting the Way to Reality



you call me a liar but you don't say how ?



typical fundie atheist





@lighting the way to stupidity



OOHHH MYYYY GOD it took you this long to figure that out :< womp womp





Are you a good dancer cuz youre doing the fundie



Maybe u can teach the other atheists how ?

Answer 15

Creationist:



1. Rodney Dangerfield looked strangely like a dinosaur.

2. Those rocks are only a few days old, the Earth was created last Tuesday.



Evolutionist:



1. Genetics

2. DNA and RNA, I rest my case.

Answer 16

Don't be ridiculous. Evolutionists have mountains of scientific evidence and creationists have only the bible. That is why we know evolution is correct.

Answer 17

Hello,

Although not a creationist myself, I believe the greatest man who ever lived. He spoke, NOT about evolution, but creation of man (Mat. 19.4). As he always spoke the truth (John 18:37), being without 'sin and blemish', I believe him, rather than any imperfect human, regardless of their 'credentials'.

Second point is that I find it impossible to accept 'spontaneous generation' of so-called 'simple' organisms, which are not simple at all. Intelligence behind these? Yes, for me definitely!

Kind regards, Günter

Answer 18

Creationism is a 6,000 year old time tested known fact... they say

Answer 19

1-This is an orderly universe. trees breathe in Carbon Dioxide and breathes out Oxygen, we breath in Oxygen and breathe out Carbon Dioxide, fish live in water and are able to harvest air out of the water through gills, how did these thing happen unless they were designed to be like that? Evolution can't possibly have occurred. It defies the second law of thermodynamics- the law of decay. Order can not come from disorder- a tornado can't blow through a junk yard and leave in its path a fully complete 747 fully fueled, ready to fly! It just can't happen, yet this is what evolutionists expect us to believe with evolution. They just add multiple millions of years to make it more acceptable, but it could never happen!

2- Darwin talked about the "Simple Cell", and during his time a cell looked like a little bit of clear goo with a dot in the center of it. We now have microscopes that show that this "Simple Cell" is anything but. Each cell is full of THOUSANDS of machines and structures wired with specific tasks and is more complex than anything mankind has ever built or could possibly build. The chances of winning the lottery is 13 million to one and that is picking just 6 numbers without being in sequence, but one strand of DNA could fill a volume of encyclopedias and the odds of that coming into existence in exact order is, without a doubt, absolutely impossible no questions asked! The whole thing screams a designer. What tells the body that it needed an eye? If evolution is random, why don't we have one eye in our armpit and one between our legs instead of evenly spaced on the front of our head where we can see exactly where we are going and able to determine depth and distance? What determined that the eye needed an iris to regulate the amount of light that comes into it? Or a lens to focus the image? How did they come about? How did the body know that the eye needed tears to clean and lubricate it or that it needed a tear duct to drain the tears or that the eye needed an eye lid to cover and protect it? Who or what told it to cover the back of the eye with a black retina to absorb all of the excess light for a good picture? How did the eye know that it needed an optic nerve to go from it to the brain so that the visual data could be translated into an image so that the body could actually see? Since the image on the retina is actually upside down, how did the eye or body know that the optic nerve needed to be attached to the eye upside down so that the image would be interpreted as being right sided up??? How did the body know to recess the eyes back into a bony hole so that the bony structure would protect it from getting squashed if we got hit in the face, etc, etc, etc!!! This is just the eyeball that we are talking about- the world is super full of millions upon millions of other examples that could NEVER come into being on its own!!! If evolution is still going on today and we have to assume that it is (If it were true), then the eye took millions of years of transition to develop, so, why is it that no one in the world has little slits on their bodies or extra appendages of new organs and gland in transition of development or limbs or other devices coming or going? Why, if it is all random, why aren't our bodies a total mess, being in transition, instead of so perfectly formed??? None of this could be possible without a Designer and His name is God!

I'm at work talking from the heart and have no ready sources at this point, I could go on and on with what I've said, but you get the point!

I just wanted to add something- I read what these other people had to say about evolution having mountains of evidence, but it doesn't have any. It is an unproven theory that cannot be reproduced or witnessed and can NEVER be proven! I saw where someone mentioned Moon dust and they are absolutely correct. If our universe is multiple millions of years old, then the dust on the moon should be about 56 ft deep, so when they went to the moon, they put saucers on the bottom of the legs of the ship that landed so that it wouldn't sink out of sight, but upon landing they found that the dust was only about two inches deep indicating a young universe like the Bible indicates!!!

Answer 20

Simple really.

Evolution is a proven scientific fact,creation isn't.





btw.There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

Answer 21

If so many people believe it, it must be right. Right?

Answer 22

god says he created it



foolish man denies it and creates his own myths



god is more believable then man's created myths



that settles it god created