Creation Vs Evolution: Which Is More Scientific?

That seems like a crazy question! Evolution is obviously the only scientific approach to explaining life and the universe at large, isn’t it? Do not be too sure. I will not bombard you with bible verses or engage you in a ‘My God Vs Your God’ war…fun as that maybe :slight_smile: I want to shed scientific light on evidences that the average evolutionist considers infallible. My goal is not to convince you, my dear reader (hopefully a religion-basher) that you are wrong. All I want to do is to point out that you should not be too sure. Most of the evidences lauded as positive proofs for evolution are actually not. Dear religion basher, evolution is as much a faith based religion as creation. The only difference is that science leans towards creation.

Let us discuss facts:

  1. The Fossil Record
    We all remember the pictures in our biology books. A column of rocks with various fossils begining with older and simpler life forms at the bottom and younger more complex organisms at the top; proof of evolution right? WRONG.

That is the scientist’s ideology interfering with the data. There is nothing like that anywhere in the world. The geologic record provides one of the best examples of cyclic reasoning. Hear me, how does the scientist create the geologic record if it is not observed anywhere in the world, simple! By determining the age of the fossils. If the fossils are older, they should be in the older rocks which are obviously lower in the geologic record. A very sound assumption I admit.

Here is where things get interesting. How are the ages of the rocks determined? carbon and argon dating you say? NO. The age of the rock is determined by the fossil in the rock, if it is an old fossil the rock is old, if it is a young fossil the rock is young. Another sound assumption. So how is the age of the fossil determined? Carbon and argon dating you say? NO! The age of the fossil is determined by its complexity. If it is a verterbrate(complex organism) it is young if it is an inverterbrate (simple organism) it is old.

The assumption here is clearly biased by evolution. The assumption that life evolved from simple organism is used to guide the evidence to support it(perjury I say). The obvious fault here is that in the future, if scientists excavate fossils formed in our time, they will still create a geological record similar to what we see in our textbooks. That snail you stepped on yesterday will be said to be older because it is simpler!

Acknowledge the source

If you mean evidence for the circular reasoning;

“It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.”—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62"

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, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

There are many more. Even evolutionist geologists acknowledge the circular reasoning. IT IS AN ACCEPTED FACT BY BOTH CREATIONISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS. I need someone to explain to me how the fossil record and geologic record support evolution before I unleash my treatise on how it supports creation.

Sounds like the history we learned in form one history.Anyway pata like.



Both creation & evolution leave me unsatisfied. There’s more. My own opinion.

Who/what created the first ape/human? Or did he evolve from nothing?

The most interesting thing is that the second law of thermodynamics (all systems are in a continuous state of disintegration) is evident even in the biologic record. This is evolutions biggest blow, in my opinion. There is not a single instance of incremental evolution. I mean to say that there are no instances where an animal increases its genetic data and develops into a more complex organism. All cited examples of evolution in action involve the loss of genetic data and organisms becoming less and less complex…big blow to evolution

Blah…blah…blah…[yawning] just wake me up when you’ve finally agreed who has won [rapidly drifting off to sleep].

Hapa hakuna debate. I’m disappointed

Yaani I am free and no atheist wants a scientific debate on why the science favors creation over evolution

The theory of evolution is a fact. In fact it’s called the theory of natural selection through genetic variation. Creation hata watu wa kanisa hawaamini

Finally! If we can keep it out of the church, out of the bible, quran, hindu vedas e.t.c and simply look at the science. If you are comfortable with the fossil record or the geologic record we can proceed to look at the evidences for evolution and creation in the same. If not, pick an evidence for evolution and we will get started on it

NB: Just because something is believed does not make it true. For a time the earth was believed to be flat by all logical minds

I am a geoscientist, sceptical about evolution but one thing that disproves the creation theory(as I see it) is the geological time frame.

Elaborate… express in details how the geological time frame is determined.

I have never heard of rocks ages being determined by the fossils contained in them.That is false.The Potassium Argon method is the Primary method used to determine the ages of rocks.
Please stop spreading lies that fossils are used to determine the age of a rock.Last I checked Igneous Rocks do not and never have fossils and Metamorphic rocks may have fossil imprints, but not actual fossils that can be dated and even that is EXTREMELY rare.So how do they date rocks in say, Central Kenya(Igneous) or Ukambani(Metamorphic) which do not have any fossils whatsover???SMH
Carbon dating is for organic material.It cannot be used on rocks.Potassium Argon dating is for inorganic material. History and Government Form 2.
C. Claiming that the simplest life form is assumed to be older is again, flawed. Bacterial fossils are found at every geological period and their structure has essentially stayed the same since they got a cell wall. (A few bacteria have chlorophyll, but that is not seen in most fossil records as such bacteria are rare).
Also, the Cretaceous Period after the Jurassic period has simpler life forms than the Jurassic period. The same applies to every period after a mass extinction, So No.

The Creation Theory establishes that the Earth is around 6500 years old.|
I have bread that can go with that bologna.

Hii point hata @Liberty hajui na yeye ni priest! The Catholic Church has believed in Darwin’s Evolution theory since 1950! Yes people, 1950!

ph . Elsewhere in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said:
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

The church first brought evolution into the fold in 1950 with the work of Pope Pius XII, writes io9. “At the same time, Catholics take no issue with the Big Bang theory, along with cosmological, geological, and biological axioms touted by science.”
[I]n fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it “pretends to be science.” But the Church’s unique take on the theory, what it calls theistic evolution, still shows that Catholics have largely missed the point.

[MEDIA=reddit]path=%2Fr%2Ftodayilearned%2Fcomments%2F7zkmy6%2F[/MEDIA] [/I]