What has more proof: Evolution or Creation?

Evolution: biochemical evidence (DNA), comparitive anatomy, fossils - which tell more than you give them credit for, not to mention what we have observed. You obviously have no knowledge about science or evolution.

Books are not proof. Hobbits are not real just because LOTR says they are.

Technically, the answer is "neither".

Evolution, as a scientific theory, is not supported by proof, but by *evidence*.

And the Theory of Evolution is supported by a virtual mountain of evidence - far more than "just bones" (see the wikipedia link for a summary of some of the more relevant ones).

Creationism is supported neither by evidence (there isn't any) , nor by proof. Writings in a thousands-of-years-old book are NOT "proof", and if you think they are, you are being irrational: for one thing, there are literally dozens of competing writing, many with an equally strong "pedigree" and history (why should the Biblical version be any truer than the Hindu, Aborigine, Shinto, Scientologist, etc. tales?)

Neither has definitive "proof".

However, the "evidence" clearly stacks up in favor of evolution. There is so much more than just "bones" as evidence for evolution. For one, there is the evidence that we can successfully predict in which sedimentary layer we can find the bones. Read about the recent tiktaalik discovery for more on that. According to creation, we should find all species in roughly the same sedimentary layer, which is obviously not true.

There is, in fact, every one of the individual organisms on Earth as evidence. Written in the DNA sequences of each is the evidence of a common ancestor among all species, be it fish or bird or tree or E. coli.

There is much, much more, but to stay to the point...

It is true that we all can look at the same evidence and claim it says to us one thing or another. On the list of evidences, written historical documentation (yes, I'll grant you that the Bible is based on actual historical facts, even though I don't agree) takes a far back seat to scientific research based on the scientific method. And every piece of evidence for evolution rests on ... that's right ... research based on the scientific method.

Written documentation for creation.

Just which written documentation do you have in mind?

Hebrew? Persian? Egyptian? Hindu? Hellenic? Nordic? Aztec?

Cherokee?

And I haven't even mentioned anywhere in Africa....

I'll point this out: the different variations on evolution agree vastly more than all these different written "documentations" on creation.

Get a grip, would you? There is much excellent wisdom in the bible, many things worth reading, but its creation myths are no better than anybody else's creation myths.

Evolution is called a theory, but it's really a hypothesis. So what is a hypothesis? A scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it "holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory. No experiments have been devised to test evolution. No observations have been made that show evolution. Evolution is not fact. It isn't even theory. It is untested hypothesis.

Some believers of evolution will say that fossils are the observations that let the hypothesis "hold water". The hypothesis explains the bones. For the bones to explain the hypothesis would be a cyclic argument. Not a valid argument.

First, the oldest books in the Bible were written by Moses. All the stories were told orally until Moses wrote them down. There is no "documentation of creation". That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, even if you want to believe the creation story of the Bible, which isn't even remotely accurate.

Second, evolution is supported by more evidence than you could possible imagine. Bones? The fossil record? You could throw away every fossil ever discovered, and the Theory of Evolution would be as well-established as it is by geology, genetic, molecular biology, and all sorts of sciences that you would have to have absolutely no clue about in order to ask this sort of question.

Evolution is fact. It happened. There is no dispute in the scientific community.

Most all skeptics (scientists or not) will not accept the Genesis record as evidence of any kind. So, there is not really any "scientific" evidence to support creation.

But- there is no evidence to support evolution either. Some will claim there are tons of evidence...but they can't seem to produce any real evidence beyond opinions. I have an opinion, and most would not care to hear it.

Bones do not prove anything, except maybe that something is dead. Why, how, or when the bones do not say either. The dates given for fossil bones are assumptions based on where the fossil was found- and not by any "scientific test". We have no idea how old those bones are. What you read in the text books is no more than a guess, and a biased one at that.

So far (from my reading plus a bit of experience), it tend to go with evolution. Human being, animals, other creatures of the earth etc...but in most evolution there seems to be a small creations that somehow precede the evolution. Technology for example in human evolution (permit me to use it if you can call one). These creations seems to be much and most important for evolution. So to sum up...I think you can guess what I am proposing about the two things, my friend.

I'm glad to see that more and more people questioning this issue.

Before Darwin came along 1809-1882 and changed the way people thought about God and Creation, most all scientist of that time believed the Biblical view of Creation. here is just 2 well known of many that believed in the Biblical account of creation.

*Isaac Newton (1642–1727) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator.

*Galileo (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy

later

*George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor

and many more, please take time to read source's.

Are you for real? By that logic, we have written documentation of hobbits, too, so they must be real.

When a written document is at odds with what the facts tell us about reality, we call that "fiction".

And you do realize that those bones? Are: a. pretty damn good evidence, and b. NOT the only evidence we have to support evolution.

The beginning of the world was a historical event, not a scientific one. You can use science to interpret evidence, but to prove something you would have to repeat it. Neither side has "more proof."

However, you can prove that evolution is wrong. If a fundamental concept of evolution is incorrect, then the whole philosophy is worthless.

As a YEC, I believe the Bible. This is not a blind faith, but more of a position I have arrived at after much consideration. Nobody brainwashed me. Nobody forced me. I was not indoctrinated. I was not born in a Christian home. I am not doing this to make my family happy. I am a Christian.