Question:
creation or evolution?
crow_james_rises
2009-02-12 14:16:42 UTC
which has more evidence
51 answers:
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:19:33 UTC
Evolution.



Just some few examples:

* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.

* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.

* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.

* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

* Speciation has been observed.

* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Tristan
2009-02-12 14:45:47 UTC
Regardless of what your teachers tell you, there is no empirical evidence for macro evolution; only theories. If all animals come from a single source, shouldn't there be transitional species in the fossil record? The fact is the fossil record only shows perfectly formed animals. The common response is, "well everything is in transition." If this is the case then the entire theory is unfalsifiable. Even if we have evolved from a single source, where did that original source come from? Do we have any evidence that a cell can bring it's self into existence? Not that I know of.
"Ski"
2009-02-12 14:34:32 UTC
Creation and evolution both use the same facts, they're just "interpreted" differently.



Some scientists interpret the facts through the religion of Christianity. Guys like Bacon, Newton, Kepler, His, Einstein - all of whom were creationists. We've learned a great deal from scientists who have done this. Our science is based on their ideas.



Some scientists interpret the facts through the religion of evolution. They always seem to lead us to more "missing" information that needs to be sought, never actually learning anything beyond their own original assumptions. (You should have seen the look on my professor's face when I put a living Neanderthal in front of him...priceless!) Evolution requires too much denying what is right in front of us...too much dishonesty. I don't have enough faith to believe in the religion known as evolution.



Edit: Crimmy, although there are literally thousands of proof for Creation, I will give you just one example to get you started. The fossil record. Evolutionists assume deeper fossils are older, then say that fossils can be dated by what strata they're found in. They also say you can tell the age of the strata by what fossils they contain. This is circular reasoning - a logic error. Creationists say all of the fossils and soils were laid down together and are sorted by density and weight in conformance with the Hydraulic Sorting Principle. What? You've never heard of the Hydraulic Sorting Principle? It is a proven scientific law accepted over 75 years ago. It's been removed from the textbooks after the 1950s because too many students figured out what it meant for the fossil record. This is just one example of evolutionists' dishonesty.



If you are honest, you'll research what I've said here and will begin to see the lies you've been taught in school. If you aren't willing to look (because you don't want to) you'll be a good evoulutionist. Just don't call what you're doing anything other than a religion.



Science is what you can prove, not what you were told.

May God bless you and your search for Truth.
?
2016-11-06 01:16:18 UTC
wonderful comments from all individuals above. Congratulations on your scholarship. regardless of if there nevertheless seems to be some confusion approximately the two words "creation" and "evolution" and the two would nicely be very in basic terms defined so as that the two comments are happy. First "creation", international specialists have contain a delineation of "creation". it fairly is : because of the fact the universe is a few thing, it had to have a "author", no longer a guy or woman yet a stress. enable us to call it : The Architect of the Universe There you have it, purely a stress devoid of chosen human beings, no favorties, purely a imaginative stress. Now this "universe" can substitute over the years, harm into galaxies and planets, be coated with water, enable effortless chemical reactions to fuse at the same time into primitive existence varieties which "evolve" into extra complicated existence varieties, into plant life and animals and ultimately human existence varieties. There you have it, creation via the architect of the Universe and "evolution" or substitute of all issues in that universe. This clarification has constantly happy technological understanding followers like myself and non secular followers who want a spiritual factor of their lives with a view to hunt for which skill and certainty.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:30:29 UTC
That's a loaded question. Evolution has more physical evidence only after the start and has no basis on the actual beginning of where everything started. I think it started with creation then evolution was secondary.
Shinigami
2009-02-12 14:28:39 UTC
Depends on what you think evidence is, I guess, for many will say: the evidence for creation is all around you! And in the same breath, the evidence for evolution is only in the Badlands, or in Southern Alberta



Evolution takes some sweat to it.

Creation is already there.
OnTheRock
2009-02-12 14:28:15 UTC
Well, everything I've seen has somehow been created, so I'd say creation has way more evidence. I can repeatably, day after day, witness how intelligence can create things. I've never seen an ape turning into a person, or a bear jumping in a lake and turning into a whale (do they still "think" it was a bear?). I've seen a lot of mutations that caused nasty stuff to happen, but can't recall seeing any positive mutations. I've seen hundreds of breeds of dogs but never seen anyone breed a dog with gills, or wings, or a big horn on its head. So, I guess I'm going to have to go with creation on this one. Now, whether I think Genesis is a literal account of how God created the world is a different question, and whether I believe it happened 6,000 years ago (hardly anyone says 6,000 anymore) is also another question. If you want to believe in evolution as the cause of all life (in contrast to "creation"), that's up to you, but don't pretend there's all sorts of "scientific" evidence supporting one theory over the other.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:34:07 UTC
Since there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate the bogus claims made by the creationists even if evolution has only one piece of evidence like drug resistant bacteria then evolution wins easily

Happy 200 B-DAY JD
Josh (*_*)
2009-02-12 14:23:13 UTC
Evolution.



Considering there is absolutely no evidence for Creation, and quite a bit for evolution.
..........
2009-02-12 14:49:01 UTC
evolution



there is NO evidence for creationism, there is countless evidence of evolution.
Mr.Samsa
2009-02-12 14:20:45 UTC
Evolution.
Brother Dave
2009-02-12 14:38:53 UTC
Everybody who is alive here is Created ! You are physically created because your human father's sperm and your human mother's egg were caused by them to unite.



Likewise, you are spiritually Created in the Father-Son Image of God by your Spirit Father and Spirit Mother.



Do you prefer a 75yr life here and then nothing ? or do you desire the spiritual peace Knowing of You eternally Existent as a divinely beloved Son of God in Jesus in Spirit ? You should reflect and choose wisely.



The Good News is that God's Spirit Essence Gift now indwells all normal, reflectively thinking humans; and all will have at least one final opportunity to see the Light of Life Eternal and then absolutely choose to Be Eternalized in Spirit and in Truth, or to be not ...extinguished forever. There is no "hell"; God is infinite love and lavish mercy.



More Good News: There are Two Persons you can not run away from here on earth: God and yourSelf spiritually ! (including soul arena of conjoint decision-union)



Peace and progress !
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:59:13 UTC
Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!



Therefore surely it is well proven that creationists have way more ignorance!!!
Charles & Willa
2009-02-12 14:28:42 UTC
Both. Evolution is scientific fact. All the evidence supports it.

There is ,though, evidence of a creative force behind evolution,a Divine Mind if you will. There is NO evidence for traditional creation myths, whether it be Judeo-Christian-Muslim, Navaho, Hopi, or Hindu.
novangelis
2009-02-12 14:23:20 UTC
Evolution has all the evidence. Creation is an unfounded assertion. Technically, they are not mutually exclusive.
Wren
2009-02-12 14:21:26 UTC
The only evidence for creationism is the evidence that evolution lacks. Basically people of faith trying to find support that lies outside of the Bible.



And C- "Why" has nothing to do with it. Nature doesn't need a reason.
johninjc
2009-02-12 14:26:14 UTC
Why not ask some scientists? Here is what some of them beleive.



http://www.newsweek.com/id/93188/page/2

Science Finds God

""When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see,'' says John Polkinghorne, who had a distinguished career as a physicist at Cambridge University before becoming an Anglican priest in 1982, ""that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.'' Charles Townes, who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the principles of the laser, goes further: ""Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.''



Although the very rationality of science often feels like an enemy of the spiritual, here, too, a new reading can sustain rather than snuff out belief. Ever since Isaac Newton, science has blared a clear message: the world follows rules, rules that are fundamentally mathematical, rules that humans can figure out. Humans invent abstract mathematics, basically making it up out of their imaginations, yet math magically turns out to describe the world. Greek mathematicians divided the circumference of a circle by its diameter, for example, and got the number pi, 3.14159 . . . . Pi turns up in equations that describe subatomic particles, light and other quantities that have no obvious connections to circles. This points, says Polkinghorne, ""to a very deep fact about the nature of the universe,'' namely, that our minds, which invent mathematics, conform to the reality of the cosmos. We are somehow tuned in to its truths. Since pure thought can penetrate the universe's mysteries, ""this seems to be telling us that something about human consciousness is harmonious with the mind of God,'' says Carl Feit, a cancer biologist at Yeshiva University in New York and Talmudic scholar.
aklyatne
2009-02-12 14:20:18 UTC
Bhahahaha, I really hope you're kidding...Creationism has absolutely NO evidence, so evolution wins by default. Also, evolution has tons of evidence supporting it.
goodgoodi
2009-02-12 14:25:43 UTC
Evolution of course. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.



Creation is backed up by faith, which is of course still strong, but if we're talking about evidence it's certainly evolution.
Bonesaw
2009-02-12 14:22:40 UTC
Evolution of course, creationist main source of this so called evidence is all copy and pasted from the bible and the rest is just pure speculation. not to mention most of their arguments are funny as hell such as the banana, watchmaker etc...
Camellia
2009-02-12 14:22:19 UTC
Creation. * Why not try reading the article first before thumbs downing it ? For one thing, the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and it also does not teach that the creative days were each just 24 hours long. When was the last time you have seen or heard of any animal crossbreeding with an animal of another group, or "kind" and producing offspring? It never happens does it? Even though there are variety in each group, they cannot breed outside of their group. Each was "created according to it's kind" holds true. There are no explanations of how life could have just started all by itself, then developed into everything that we have today, just by itself? no way.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:20:22 UTC
Evolution. Evolution has fossils, geological evidence, theoretical stability.



Creationism has a book written by some kinda space wizard 2000 years ago.
No Gods, No Masters
2009-02-12 14:20:15 UTC
Creation = NONSENSE

evolution = science



EDIT

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and attempt to duplicate any experimental procedures involved.



Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.



Creationism is NOT a theory
Purple Monkey Dishwasher
2009-02-12 14:26:16 UTC
Evolution is the only one that has evidence.



Creation is just something the Fundies use to try and explain the rest of what has already been proven. whats really sad is it doesn't make any sense to history, or the bible.
chippyreturns
2009-02-12 14:19:55 UTC
Evolution.



I have yet to see one bit of evidence to support creation.



Btw - the Bible doesn't count as evidence of creation, it counts as evidence that creation was a man made idea.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:37:24 UTC
Evolution, by far.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:20:58 UTC
Evolution by natural selection
Bride of Christ
2009-02-12 14:27:29 UTC
Creation.



Life can not come from non-life.



If and when that can ever be duplicated in a lab then and only then would I consider that there be a slight chance that there is no God.



But I wont be holding my breath
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:20:11 UTC
What's an evidence?
Colagum
2009-02-12 14:20:47 UTC
Evolution has more. Fossil records, primates using simple tools, ect.



Creation has one false book source. ONE book source.
Bluto Blutarsky68
2009-02-12 14:20:32 UTC
creation has no evidence to support it.



evolution has mounds of fossils as well as dna tracking to support it.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:20:15 UTC
evolution, why do you even need to ask.



I challenge anyone before they give me a million thumbs down to give me evidence that is not taken from the bible.



Edit: Five thumbs down yet, and still no proof for creation :D
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:20:42 UTC
Almost 200 years of empirical, tangible evidence

The latter
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:23:16 UTC
Masturbation. There is overwhelming evidence that it feels good.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:21:20 UTC
Evolution.



Creationism is just a faith based interpretation of what is observed in a nonscientific way.
Godless Christian
2009-02-12 14:21:16 UTC
creation has zero scientific evidence.



even darwin became an agnostic from being a christian when he realized god didn't do it.
A Modest Proposal
2009-02-12 14:20:19 UTC
Evolution. Notice how they both begin with "E". That's how you can remember it.
Brian
2009-02-12 14:19:32 UTC
Evolution.



There is 0 evidence for creation



Evolution has nearly 200 years of peer reviewed support.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:19:23 UTC
Creation
publicosystem
2009-02-12 14:21:36 UTC
The Lord works in mysterious ways.



So, creation "through" evolution.
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:20:43 UTC
Creation.
הבת של יהוה
2009-02-12 14:25:47 UTC
i'm gunna go with "created evolution."
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:23:08 UTC
Creation.

The Bible is the only proof needed.
sid2themax
2009-02-12 14:21:34 UTC
neither. but does is really matter? i don't know about everybody else but i don't need evidence to believe in something.
Initial contact
2009-02-12 14:20:36 UTC
Creation!

Jehovah started it ALL>
The Sneaky Atheist
2009-02-12 14:20:27 UTC
Are you serious?
anonymous
2009-02-12 14:19:55 UTC
Creation.



Overwhelming evidence for a young earth demolishes the evolution theory.



BTW, Evolution cannot even be classified as a theory. Theories need to be testable and repeatable. Evolution is not testable or repeatable. Therefore evolution is less than a theory, its an idea or a paradigm. Sorry for all you atheists who think they are scientists. Yes, same goes for creation, but at least I'm not trying to be a scientist, even though I've probably done more formal science in college than any of you.
gracie
2009-02-12 14:19:55 UTC
You're looking for a fight, man. I'm not gonna get involved in this.
Karl P
2009-02-12 14:19:39 UTC
Creation!
B
2009-02-12 14:19:41 UTC
evidence shmevidence
C
2009-02-12 14:20:22 UTC
Creation.Why would it all make itself?





http://www.drdino.com


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...