Search SEARCH

Evolution vs. Creation, what's more reasonable?

Scientists with impressive credentials are leaving the doctrines of evolution. Unfortunately, no one has informed the general public. As Science Digest reported: Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science. Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle: The notion that...the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Researcher and Mathematician I. L. Cohen: At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. ...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today. Evolutionist Michael Denton: The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. Peter Saunders (University of London) and Mae-Wan Ho (Open University): From the claims made for neo-Darwinism one could easily get the impression that it has made great progress towards explaining Evolution, mostly leaving the details to be cleared up. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson: No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it... Evolutionist Greg Kirby: If you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments... Evolutionist Lord Solly Zuckerman: Students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution... The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is...in this field at all. Evolutionist Tom Kemp: A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose: We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists... Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History: The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation. Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University: I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist: The best physical evidence that the earth is young is a dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling...the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. ...To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony physics. Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University: The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. ...if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond...anything produced by the intelligence of man? C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General: When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them. Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho: We ourselves would be less concerned about falsifiability if neo-Darwinism were a powerful theory with major successes to its credit. But this is simply not the case. C. Martin in American Scientist: The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolutionist: No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution. Arthur Koestler, author: In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology. Norman Macbeth: Darwinism has failed in practice. Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist: Modern apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans...is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.: The Evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before... John Woodmorappe, geologist: Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order. ...it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods. Evolutionist S. Lovtrup: Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen? J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science: The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply. N. H. Nilsson, famous botanist and Evolutionist: My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. Luther Sunderland, science researcher: None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another. Tom Kemp of Oxford University: As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record. Francis Hitching, archaeologist: The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places. David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist: Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist and paleontologist and former Evolutionist: Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician: A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. ...moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully. I. Cohen, mathematician and archaeologist: It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of Evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist: The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds. Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher: The theory of Evolution...will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. Source: godsaidmansaid.com I believe most of you mistake evolution with adaptation. all of you check out this: evolutionoftruth.com psychoticB: mutts do not evolve, they just adapt their genes within each other, the don't form new traits.

Asked By: Let's Debate - 11/2/2007
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Once again, I'm gonna have to call you on this... More
Answered By: penster_x - 11/2/2007
Additional Answers (27)
Long, pointless, bias rant.
Answered By: nixity - 11/2/2007
 
creation.....there is no denying that our father in heaven made this! however i think some of the things he has created have evolved into other things
Answered By: |~fashonista~| - 11/2/2007
 
I think Creation is more reasonable,because I guess I understand how there was someone that created animals and humans.
Answered By: Jr. m - 11/2/2007
 
Give me proof, real proof, not some made up crap about faith, that God exists, then i will consider creation. So what if it is unlikely that dna and rna came together to produce life. it is possible and you and i are living proof that it can happen.
Answered By: Spartan316 - 11/2/2007
 
Absolute rubbish. You embarrass yourself.
Answered By: Rikounet - 11/2/2007
 
Makes you think really, but its less feaseable that there is a creator becuase who created the creator? Someone will thik outside the box and crack it eventually
Answered By: Deano - 11/2/2007
 
And just as many Religious people are dropping the God side and moving to the evolutionary side... More
Answered By: Taelec - 11/2/2007
 
Evolution. Sine quo non. If you had chimp f*********u couldn't have typed all that. Sum ergo sum.
Answered By: Barney R - 11/2/2007
 
Creationism is alot easier to believe and follow. Evolutionism is more realistic. I guess it depends on whether or not you are a religious mind or scientific mind :)
Answered By: Jaimee - 11/2/2007
 
Well - Creationists at the Discovery Institute have, since 2001, constructed a list of around 600 scientists who state that they do not believe in evolution (their "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" document... More
Answered By: gribbling - 11/2/2007
 
I don't need to be a scientist to see evidence for an intelligent design. All I need to do is go out into a field of wildflowers. When I see the variety, beauty and precision that the creator lavished on weeds, I laugh at the idea that everything around me could have happened by an accident or evolution... More
Answered By: LeslieAnn - 11/2/2007
 
So your saying evolution doesn't exist... More
Answered By: Psychotic B - 11/2/2007
 
if it was evolution then we came from monkeys so why are there monkeys now? are they going to change to human beings? no way so creation is the resonable one.
Answered By: lily - 11/2/2007
 
I think it's admirable that you are not blindly believing what you are told either in church or in school but investigating for yourself. So many people on both sides of the argument don't bother to do that but just accept what they are told... More
Answered By: Cathy T - 11/2/2007
 
You're using Fred Hoyle, the champion of alien seeding of life on earth, as support for creationism? Either you're very confused or you're not very selective. Fine, you've decided to believe in nonsense, and you have a list of other people that have decided to believe with you. Simply disagreeing with the evidence... More
Answered By: John R - 11/2/2007
 
I love your posts!This is simple.Some folks have no problem accepting that they have "evolved" from something lower.We, on the other hand, believe we were intelligently designed by a loving creator to have fellowship with Him.What I wonder is this (sorry for answering a question with a question):If they evolved from... More
Answered By: lori t - 11/2/2007
 
so....which came first man or animals? Genesis, chapter 1 says animals first then man. Genesis, chapter 2 says man first then animals. Which is right? If that's the basis for creationism/6000 yr old earth, and we should take it literally, then which is right?
Answered By: jarhead7053 - 11/2/2007
 
Evolution takes more faith and is more illogical than creation. How can people claim to think "logically" and believe things evolve when you see no sign of evolution in todays times. Did evolution stop? It did not ever begin!
Answered By: Fat Shark - 11/2/2007
 
Well it looks like you've already made up your mind, so I don't think it's a debate you want... More
Answered By: albertteacake - 11/2/2007
 
Evolution is a lot more reasonable than creation... More
Answered By: sparky_dy - 11/2/2007
 
it's a bit arrogant that you think a god would make a cosmos with billions of stars, with black holes and neutron stars and galaxies colliding spilling stars into spirals millions of light years long, just to make you feel special? Get over yourself and join the rest of humanity in the 21st century, not mired in iron... More
Answered By: numbnuts222 - 11/2/2007
 
i believe in evolution it is so much more reasonable, because how do we have proof that god ever existed? well there was not any witnesses so there is no real proof,and if god made the world then who made him,also the creation story where it is supposed with adam and eve, but in actual fact humans have not been on this... More
Answered By: Jake P [UK] - 11/2/2007
 
Rather than address each quote separately I'll focus on just one, and leave it for the curious to investigate the rest. This entire list of quotations has been endlessly copied and pasted throughout the creationist world, but has gained no traction in legitimate circles. Why? Because it consists of misquotations... More
Answered By: relaxification - 11/2/2007
 
Psychotic B is right and I don't think you understand what Evolution is. Maybe you should learn more about it.
Answered By: Chunky - 11/2/2007
 
And you use the identifier "Let's Debate?" A debate, being a reasoned exchange of ideas between matched sides, is impossible here. You have no understanding of science. You have no understanding of evolution. (... or abiogenesis or speciation... More
Answered By: Nimrod - 11/3/2007
 
PLEASE READ THIS... More
Answered By: xuigenerix - 11/4/2007
 
Well alot of all this information is old, and all of their issues has already been addressed and explained....hundreds of times... More
Answered By: Shaz - 11/5/2007
 
Sponsored results
Over 483 Local Jobs Now Hiring In Your Area. $18-$87/Hr - Apply Today!
Jobs.Quick-com
Work At Home Jobs Make $87/HR, Jobs Seen On TV. Jobs Hiring Now
www.HomeJobs-Finder.info
Click. Search. Apply. Free!
www.JobDiagnosis.com
My Internet Job Paid Me $4,000 in 10 Days, See Proof
www.InternetJobs.com

Other Career Questions

What is your current job? Why did you choose this job? What do you enjoy about your job? What do you dislike about your job? What would be your perfect job? Would you rather have this j...
3 answers - Asked By: drop pants not bombs!.♥ - 3/2/2010
Where are the jobs? Is productivity and globalization creating a permanent “recession” of jobs? My main issue is I am doing a paper for school and have no idea where to begin. I was hoping suggestions...
4 answers - Asked By: bayebd24【ツ】 - 11/21/2007
Hi ok im 19 and about to start college to do an acess course into a university. Ive been browsing through all the courses and im tottaly stuck! I thought politics but im scared ill end up with some r...
1 answers - Asked By: roseparkerly - 1/26/2009

Content is not owned or controlled by Monster. Any content concerns should be addressed with Yahoo!
Yahoo! Does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. Yahoo! Disclaimer.

Popular Articles

Best-Paying Work-from-Home Jobs Article Rating
It’s easier than ever to work from home. Of course, not every job is a mobile job, and some companies aren’t interested in having their employees work from home.
2013 Marketing Jobs Outlook Article Rating
The US may be facing another year of anemic hiring overall, but that won't be the case in the high-orbit world of multichannel, digital media marketing.
For Employers: Post Jobs | Search Resumes | Advertise
About Monster | Work for Monster | Advertise with Us | AdChoices | Partner with Us | Investor Relations | Social Media
Terms of Use | Privacy Center | Accessibility Center | Help | Security | Contact Us | Sitemap | Mobile
©2014 Monster - All Rights Reserved U.S. Patents No. 5,832,497; 7,599,930 B1; 7,827,125 and 7,836,060 MWW - Looking for Monster Cable? - V: 2014.1.40.24-219
eTrustLogo