Evidence against evolution:


There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

Direct evidence for Creation:


The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.

Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn’t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil. He certainly wasn’t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism.

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Originally posted by Chemley
reply to post by Whine Flu

---

And now for something completely different... I will "prove" the non-existence of God. Ok, God does not exist. There, it has been said, so it is true. I have uncreated the God that we created many eons ago. But yet it lingers, that pesky problem that we are arguing that God is true because just some dude said it... Seriously, if God does exist, then what a wonderful one to give us this much to ponder to infinite possibilities. Then again, if God does not, well, here we are wasting another night on ATS. But wait, then this isn't a waste, our mere existence is. Shoot, I forgot to not exist. Who allowed me to do that? Darn it all, this little life. Nothing really left to do but ponder that black abyss. Oh, but then we have that other problem of "black abyss" being impossible without "creation". I suppose I will move on to creating that blackness. Now then, I have finally achieved all of my goals to prove that there is no God. And in my godliness, I have proven that I am god and created a perfect Hell for myself. In a wonder of self contemplation, I imagine us on the stairs of something that looks big and important in Greece a few thousand years ago debating this. Hello, Plato, my name may be Socrates. Then again, they aren't real either.

Snarky? Maybe a little but no god will judge this today... Or maybe ever...