If Creationism did happen ...?
409502
You are right.\n\nCenturion: I hope that you only are asking this question sarcastically, in order to give an example of the silly questions that creationists ask, so nobody has to explain that obviously species take separate evolutionary paths, based on their environment, so that the same species in different environments will eventually evolve into different species.\n\nUnknown: What do you mean by a fossil of a creature turning into something else?  That doesn't really make much sense, seeing how all creatures are in the process of turning into "something else" - we just don't know what the future of evolution holds.  Haven't you heard about the recent discovery of the fossil of the "fish" which helps to provide evidence of the transition of animals from water to land?  I don't really know what you mean by saying that there are no "missing links" - there are thousands of them!  I just ahve the feeling that no number of missing links would be sufficient.  Between any two species it will always be possible ask for a "linking" fossil, and since there cannot be an infinite number of fossils, it will always be theoretically possible to say that no missing links have been found.\n\nmamcrackin: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200044CLXE\nsee my comment above that no number of misssing links will ever be able to "prove" evolution.  If half-man/half-animal were found (and they have been, just look at all the fossils of the earlier human species) creationists would just ask for 3/4 man, 1/4 animal fossils, and then 7/8 man, 1/8 animal, and so on.  \n\nindiebaptist: Her point is that while there would be fish fossils evenly dispersed throughout the layers of earth, non-aquatic animals would be clumped in one layer - the layer during which the flood occurred.  This is not what we find when looking at the fossils in the layers of earth.  The great flood was also gods way of killing a lot of animals who had done nothing to deserve that punishment. by the way, hovind's PhD (from a non accredited school) is in christian education, not biology or any other science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind  \nI really have to wonder where you are getting your facts from.  Darwin wasn't a lawyer, and even if he was, you are citing the work of someone trained in christian education, not science in order to support your belief.  How is that any better?  In any case, Darwin was formally trained to be a clergyman, but studied a lot of the natural sciences on the side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nRegardless of darwin's training, his theories must stand on their own merit, as his has done, and not on the credentials of their creator.
284038
Evolution occurs all around us on a daily basis, so you should teach the truth.  Dogs are a perfect example of evolution occuring.  Man has got involved and sped up the process, but evolution is occuring.  Genetic mutations change characteristics or traits of the dog.  The breeder then selects those animals that get to breed for future generations, ensuring the trait gets carried on.  You can come up with at least a thousand common everyday situations that point to evolution occuring right now, so it is highly likely that it has always been occuring.\n\nThere is plenty of room to argue around what happened in the beginning.  Was there a starter creature that we all came from?  Was God's hand involved in starting things?  Did he start with a few organisms and then add more later?  These are all legitimate questions that should all be discussed, but you have to be honest and present all of the information and allow the student to then determine their own beliefs.  Evolution does not disprove the existence or involvement of God or a creator.  Evolution may simply be the means by which God does his creating.  He doth work in mysterious ways.
772249
Interesting.  When I read your question, my first thought was "creation."
1064729
Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism.  There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level.  And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this.  Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead.  We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if (as many claim here) Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not?  That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world.  No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'.  There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence.  Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first.  They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing.  And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/) and find out for yourself.
1103745
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.
640350
Yeah...one of my college professors said that God started the whole thing...I agree...who said that creation was a "quiet" event...The BIG BANG...and God was the one that fired the shot!
871014
Personally it would freak me out.  I think this would lead to more questions than answers. \n\nWho will raise the child? \nWhat are the expectations of the child?\nHow is the genome comprised of?  Disease free?  Superior human strength?\nWhat is the purpose of this super-human?  To better the world?  To rule?  As soldiers?  As our slaves?\n\nToo much to think about.  I'm happy with evolution the way it is, nice, slow, and steady.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
1147506
As long as it was theory and not fact- there would be someone to dispute it.  So, no. Unfortunately.  \n\nBut it would be worth trying for, anyways.
332923
I think it's just a random fact that neither proves nor disproves anything.  I do, however, believe in creationism (intelligent design) based on the fact that believing in evolution is the equivalent of watching a tornado rip through a junkyard and expecting a perfectly assembled 747 ready for takeoff.
38407
Personally, I feel that Evil would have just had ultimate reign.  For creation to cease to exist, wouldn't God have to make it so?  It doesn't seem like God's character to just give up like that.\n\nThen again, God knows everything that is going to happen, so if he *had* bowed down, maybe God would have had another plan to fix the matter?
1168436
There was not a 'before' according to the creationism theory.  When God created the heavens and the Earth as in Genesis, he would have also created time.  So thus, before God created 'here', there was not only no here, there was no time to be before so that someone else would be here.
352659
Um, spur4eight, sorry but Creation Science is not what most would consider "true science."\n\nPersonally, I don't understand how anybody who knows anything about science can think that "scientists are lying about evolution" or some silly thing like that.  Just go and talk to a scientist.  Go to a university, better yet.  Seems to be about the only place that people actually think anymore...
222212
OK, I will put this nice and simply.  There is absolutely no scientifically credible evidence that supports creationism, or the idea that we originated from two individuals.  Faith is a wonderful thing but is not a substitute for evidence.
709446
if it was created by a creator, what then created the creator?\n\nOur physics breaks down inside an Event Horizon so there's really no way of currently knowing as to how it formed.  All we know is we're here, and by random chance.  \n\nCreationism is not a plausible explanation nor is "intelligent design."
133096
Let's face an unpleasant fact for the creationists: Almost no one other than a very vocal minority of Christians BELEIVES in creationism the way the fundamentalists talk about it.\n\nSure, a big chunk of Americans hold some creationist opinion, but the average Christian, in America and the World, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN LITERAL Creationism. It just does not make sense, either theologically or scientifically.\n\nSo, which one will win? Evolution, hands down.\n\nThe loudly outspoken Biblical literalists and fundamentalists will continue to rail and try to drum up support, and certainly experience a few minor victories, but just as they lost in most of the challenges this last year, they will contuinue to lose.\n\nHeck, if the vocal churches would stop weilding their political bats, the politicians would not even be making this an issue.