Creationists and evolutionists: what about earth? Evolution's "proofs" are dead matter and creation's

I'm going to say creation. Surprisingly my argument for this is in fact, DNA, Atoms, Molecules, Cell Structures, etc. Just look at it's complexity. If it were completely random, something would've had to go wrong, but it's far too precise, too planned. Then there's the natural beauty of the Earth. If it were random it all would have been a sloppy mess.

Here's an issue. Earth is billions of years old. Genesis says the earth was created on 23 October 4004 BC (Archbishop of Canterbury, James Ussher) Creationists demand that evolution must prove everything "because it's only a theory."

At the same time the bible has been translated from several languages, revised, books taken out, written in several versions (Anyone remember the "Reader's Digest" version? The joke was there were on 5 commandments in it.)

Much of the creationist replies is misinformation. "we have monkeys in our ancestry based on another answer." So that's the level of proof?

There's also the "DNA, Atoms, Molecules, Cell Structures, etc. Just look at it's complexity" "NOVA" documented the latest creation/evolution court case. The creationist proponent claimed that there was no scientifc documentation. The opposing lawyer loaded him down with many books that all addressed and answered the issue.

Frankly, I have always appreciated what Arthur C. Clarke said

That only a poor workman has to return to fix and tinker with something. A master craftsman does the job, stores his tools and walks away knowing everything will work. (Challenge of the Spaceship)

Ed pretends Europeans are smarter on this subject. He doesn't even know we have monkeys in our ancestry based on another answer. Evolutions proofs are also live matter. Evolutions proofs are all around us. We see them in the AIDS virus changing form or bacteria evolving resistance or the moths that turn dark to match sooty trees. There is no proof for creationism. Just because you can't recreate it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It took billions of years for life to evolve. How arrogant to think if you can't recreate it in a few years, it must be done by something magical. It simply took a very very long time.

Evolution does not explain or prove how life began....since all life comes from previous living matter, it must have been created. There's no evidence that life can arise from non-living materials through natural processes....the Law of Biogenesis. All non-natural creations require a Creator. Although many suggestions have been put forth, none have been proved. Macro-evolution is also a flawed premise that is inferred to have ocurred from micro-evolution but the fossil record and Cambrian explosion do not support it...nor the need for additional information in the DNA code which micro-evolution does not provide. It is merely a resorting or shuffling of existing information.

There are also many evidences of a young earth and a created universe which exclude a timescale for evolution to occur along with the Biblical account of creation....God created all things in six days around 6000 years ago.

What about it?

No, not all of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution is "dead" -- not that that matters. Evidence is evidence. Both the fossil and geological evidence, and the DNA and morphological evidence are all evidence.

There is NO evidence whatsoever of any Sky Bully who created everything.

None.

The existence of butterflies, sharks, and the rest is not evidence of Creationism, as there is a sound and well-supported explanation Creationists refuse to consider.

My stand is with truth, reason, evidence, fact, and science; not myth.

Since it takes books' worth of explanation to defend and elaborate, and there's clearly no point since you aren't even interested in trying to understand any of it, I'll just leave you with a couple of links (that you'll probably not follow, as you refuse to consider reason, evidence, fact, or truth -- or so I gather):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution

how about the proof that Geology shows the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, give or take a million, while creationism says it was created in 7 days 7000 years ago. When I look at the earth I see plate tectonics, and an active evolving system of creation and destruction, a cycle of changing and evolving landforms, rather than a static perfect system created by an all knowing, perfect being.

so yes, I have looked at the earth, not just biology, and decided on evolution.

the only argument i've got ever heard against evolution that had ANY shred of credibility and scientific questioning grew to become into the concept of Irreducible Complexity - the concept each and every of the factors of a organic and organic mechanism had to pop up on the comparable time, and it may no longer function with any of the areas lacking. i do no longer purchase it, yet a minimum of it exhibits some questioning.

There is a moment in a famous film that reflects and asks if all is random or planned. The answer is both.

I'm not being funny, but the proof of evolution is overwhelming and undeniable. It includes genetics, fossils, biology, anatomy, and a host of other sciences.

The "proof" of creation is some allegorical passages in a 4000-year-old Hebrew text. There's simply no comparison.

There will be a broadly 50/50 split in the answers. Americans are going to be in favour of the creation myth, and sensible Europeans are going to back common sense.