Evolution and Creationism?

You simply need to look on creationist websites:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Some big ones are:

-Chemical evolution or abiogenesis (before you can invoke natural selection, you need an organism that can acquire food, make energy, and reproduce itself).

-The Cambrian explosion (the sudden appearance of all these diverse and fully formed animals in the fossil record, with no evolutionary ancestors).

-Information gaining mutations (many of the so called “evidences of evolution” actually show the opposite of evolution—information decrease; you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes).

-Homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship) or homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development.

-"Missing links" (while Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples).

-“Living fossils” (animals and plants that supposedly lived millions and even hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today).

-The "biochemical machines" in cells (many of these elegant machines are of greater sophistication than we are capable of making; in trying to understand these biological systems, molecular biologists actually need to “reverse engineer” them; hardly the simple ‘globules of plasm’ envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries).

-The digital code inscribed along the spine of DNA (evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy).

-And, of course, an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place that makes it meaningful. The language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. And so you have another one of the chicken-and-egg problems for evolutionists. There are so many of these “machines” (if you will) that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work.

I would take a look at Dr. Jonathan Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution".

When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance and natural selection, they are often accused of invoking a "God of the gaps". Yet, when evolutionists are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance random processes they invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!).

When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model, they claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But, if they can point out even one problem in the creationist model, it should instantly be abandoned as absurd!

Most of the time, people just give examples of natural selection and assume it points to molecules-to-man evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection and even "speciation." Take a look at these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-na...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap...

Here are some of Darwin’s failed predictions: http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-printable.html

And, it’s not science: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s...

From what I’ve seen, I have to agree with Timothy Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

People love to go to talkorigins.org, but rarely get the other side of the story: http://www.trueorigin.org/

I suppose the most apparent question asked by the creationist of the evolutionist is, without absolutes how does evolution come to real answers as without absolutes real answers are never possible. If I were an evolutionist I would ask the creationist what why we need a God.

- The origin of life and genetic information.

Evolutionists attempt to isolate biological evolution from the chemical evolution (and other forms of evolution) which would be required to explain the formation of the first living cell. In order for biological evolution to occur, there must be an organism to evolve. Creationists see the volumes of information contained in DNA as proof of a supernatural source of intelligence, God, in much the same way that any other medium of information requires an author. Evolutionists fail to show the origin of both life and a natural source of that information.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035347611...

"We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells" - Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University

- Timeline.

There is hard evidence that the Earth is not old enough for evolution to be the cause of life as we know it.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-ear...

Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

- Lack of a Natural Mechanism.

Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.

The Big Bang theory and origin of life are not part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only addresses what the evidence shows us has happened to life since it first arose. I spent some time pouring over creationists objections but it was a waste of time. Most of them are misunderstandings of what science really says and distortions. The missing link argument is a fallacy. We have tons of transitional fossils and lots of evidence independent of the fossil record from the fields of molecular biology and genetics.

27 years ago a challenge was made by scientist Robert V. Gentry. The evolutionists have been unable to answer.

http://www.halos.com/

Zen pirate above me ^^^^ doesn't know what evolution is. Many are ignorant so again I'll show them.

Cosmic Evolution

Eric Chaisson, Ph.D.

As a Harvard trained astrophysicist who currently directs the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University, Eric Chaisson presented on evolutionary theory writ-large, aka cosmic evolution. Combining a spirited lecture with stunning visual presentations, Chaisson condensed the grand sweep of our cosmic heritage into a gripping 55-minute tour of the history of the entire universe from big bang to humankind.

And I'll define evolution as anything that opposes or denies the creation of God.

As far as biology goes a creationist has no valid points whatsoever on the subject. If you want to get into mysticism, that is another topic, subject, field altogether.

There are none... especially when they demonstrate their ignorance and ask about the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with evolution, or ask for the exact formula of the primordial soup. I love people who say "that one fossil turned out to be fake, so therefore it was all created by the God of Abraham."

<<Identify some points “creationists” make, that you feel are not fully explained by “evolutionists”.>>

None.

Most 'points' creationists make, are based completely on pure speculation, misinformation, and ignorance.

Since we know the steady state model of the universe is not true, that it had a beginning, what was the first cause?

How could something come from nothing without intelligent input? Nothing is "no thing", so how could "some things" come from "no things"?

DNA molecules are information systems, they contain information for all living things. We know information does not spring up on its own, nor come from matter or energy. Information can only come from a greater source of information, what was the first and greater information source?

There are just not enough answers in evolution. too many loop holes. too many problems with their theories. not enough answers for their thoughts. the missing link is still unsolved. creationists have all the answers to this.