ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Science in Society

Creationism vs Evolution with Scientific Facts

Updated on November 20, 2013
Source

Definition of Creation and Evolution

Evolution, they teach it at public schools, magazines and scientific literature talk about millions and billions of years. Yet, there are questions. Questions like "how can an explosion create something", or "does this disprove the existence of a God." Most people do know what evolution is, Webster's Encyclopedia states:

"Evolution is the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, inbreeding, and mutation." ("Evolution" Webster''s Encyclopedic)

Many people don't know what creationism is because the majority of the scientific field would much rather accept the theory of evolution. Consequently, the school, media, books, magazines and almost every other place you look there is support for evolution and almost none for creationism. Webster's Encyclopedia's definition of creationism is as follows:

"the doctrine of matter and all thing were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." (Creationism, Webster's Ecyclopedic)


Source

Charles Darwin

Darwin thought he had found evidence of evolution when he went on his worldwide voyage on a ship called the H.M.S. Beagle. Being a naturalist, Darwin cataloged the animals he saw, and noticed that fossils and living animals have striking similarities. Darwin also collected 31 finches of fourteen different species off three of the island of Galapagos.

When he returned to England, a man named John Gould had a look at them and noticed that the birds that lived in areas that had nut had large beaks for which to crush the nuts and the birds that lived in areas with insects had small beaks. These findings led Darwin to conclude that a process known as natural selection formed the finches' bills.

There are many misleading circumstances such as these that lead scientists to form false theories. Although evolution is largely favored within scientific realm, more and more evidence is being uncovered that validates the biblical account of creationism and disproves evolution. Before we get started studying this evidence, let's take a more in-depth look at the theory of evolution.

The most common secular theory is that the stars, planets, and moons were created by what is known as the big bang theory. It has been theorize that the universal expansion caused clouds of matter to be created. These clouds of matter were than contracted and started rotating. When the matter became squeezed hard enough, nuclear reactions occur forming the stars. A couple of these stars formed right in thee midst of some material. These bits of material then coalesced to form planets. By observation of the speed in which galaxies move outward and how far apart they are, scientists believe that they can come up with an accurate idea of what the age of the universe is.

After this has happened, the process of abiogenesis comes into play. Abiogenesis is the process in which nonliving products become alive. During a time span of "10 billion years", atoms randomly collide to form simple, living organisms. This is the beginning of the theory of evolution.

These simple, living organisms than evolved into organism that are more complex. Because the complex organisms are more fit for survival than their simpler descendants, these organisms cancel their descendants out. This process is what scientists refer to as natural selection. Basically it is the survival of the fittest. The organisms and animals that are fit enough to survive get their traits passed on while those who are weak die out.

Scientists claim they found the most direct evidence of evolution through the preserved remain of animals called fossils. Few animals become fossilized because they first have to be buried in sediment, the the hard tisssues from the carcass mineralize, and lastly, the sediment around the remains hardens to form a rock.

The fossils found are sorted from oldest to youngest. Scientists first dated the fossils by dating the rocks around the carcass. Nowadays, scientists believe they can date the fossils more accurately by measuring the degree of decay of the isotopes of the rocks. When the fossils are sorted, they supposedly show evolutionary change.

Evolution derived from many different branches, including paleontology, geology, biology, and phylogeny. Paleontologists examine fossils, create family trees, estimates the time frame of fossild, and speculates evolutionary paths. A person who studies geology studies rocks. Biology is the study of plants and animals. A phylogenist studies the evolutionary development of living things.

The theory of evolution sounds true, yet, even Charles Darwin admitted that the theory is shaky. He put it this way,

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Many people believe it has come to this point. A slight modification of a vital organ would prove a fatality. By common sense, people should know that an organ would not function properly with the rest of thee system of it would be slightly modified. Therefore, according to natural selection, the system with the slightly modified organ would die out and the original would still survive.

Source

The Mousetrap Analogy

A good example of this idea is the mousetrap analogy. A mousetrap's function is to kill a mouse. The trap has four basic parts: wooden platform, metal hammer, spring, and metal bar for holding the hammer. The question is, how can it be slightly modified to make it more suitable for is purpose? Maybe by removing a part or making one part larger or smaller? The answer is, it is impossible because it is irreducibly complex! Regardless whar modification is made, it is ruined or handicapped. Consider this sequence, "skateboard, toy, wagon, bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, airplane, jetplane, space shuttle." (Behe, "The Concept") It is easy to see the relation between one vehicle to the next, but the sequence only has conceptual connection, not physical. For example, a bike cannot be made into a motorcycle with only bike parts, and certainly not into a space shuttle. So for a mutation, a change in DNA, to occur, a nucleotide would have to be either switched, added, subtracted, and it is impossible to tell whether many small mutations could cause numerous anatomical changes to occur.

A mousetrap could perhaps be modified two ways that wouldn't ruin its function, changing the color and size. This would be called microevolution. Microevolution occurs when the species' looks change,, through tiny changes, but it wouldn't change its appearance. An organism could change itas color or size, but not change from from a frog to say... a lizard.

Dating Techniques

It is ironic that scientists could date rocks before radiometric dating was invented, but it's more ironic the way they dated the rocks. First of all, they will propose a date to a fossil according to the phylogenetic tree. After this, they find a layer of earth with the same fossil as the one just assigned the date to and say that this layer is that old. Then they publish the "evidence" saying that they knew the age of the fossil by dating the earth surrounding it.

When radiometric dating was invented, they said that they now have a much better way to date fossils. Again they were wrong. Different methods of radiometric dating produce different results of an object. There was one such occasion where scientist tested different parts of a rock and they came out with three different dates! (1.87 million years, 25 million years, and 500 million years) Also notable, is the fact that the people who dated the rocks asked for the proposed age before that actual dating took place. Therefore, scientist can actually control the date of a fossil using different dating techniques.

Flaws of the Theory of Evolution

So many books support evolution that it is a wonder that the theory has so many flaws, yet, they are all derived from previous books. Usually, they consist of an artist imagination of million year plants and animals and a couple of drawings showing the proposed ages and names of earth's layers. The books really don't have any questionable evidence because all the books contain the same writing, only in a different way. This is commonly called a circle of information.

Some scientist have sorted groups of animals into something called the phylogenetic tree. There is a notable flaw in the tree there are gaps in them. These gaps are missing links where a species' branch was supposed to change into another species.

There is a sudden explosion of complicated life between the Precambrian and Cambrian period. This explosion cannot be explained by evolution and microevolution. The theory is much to slow working to be the answer. Increasing the number of complex organism should have taken much longer then the geologic layers show.

In the Pliocene layer, where 7-12 million year old remain of Ramapithecus skeletons were supposed to be, there instead was found a modern human. This shocking finding puts down evolution and dating techniques even further. Scientists attempt to cover this up by saying it's only a burial.

Source

Doesn't the Fossils Prove Evolution?

Perhaps the most down-putting fossils found are those that span millions of years of geologic layers. Many trees have been found still standing upright buried. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, many of the surrounding trees were buried in the same fashion. The concept that geologic layers are representations of long period is immensely discredited by these fossils and by the eruption of St. Helens.

If an animal dies in the field right now, it wouldn't just sit there until it would be buried under sediment, it would either be eaten up, blown away, or blown away, or decay first. This is all just logical thinking, it would not take a mad scientist to figure something like this out. Sometimes, fossils are found in large groups. The large group of fossils are commonly called graveyard. Again, use of logic thinking would show that it isn't very apt that animals would die in a heap and then just remain there until it would become fossilized.

Some fossils from millions of years back haven't changed their shape up to now. Evolutionists have come up with the concept of stabilizing selection for the explanation. They state that natural selection suppressed innovations by negating all the changes, sometimes for millions of years. This is the exact opposite of natural selection.

Creationism with Scientific Facts

There are many scientific facts supporting creationism. While these facts do not scientifically prove creationism, they do carry some weight when deciding whether or not the biblical account of creation is a scientifically valid theory. Before we continue to the facts supporting creationism, let's delve in a little deeper into what I consider creationism.

Creationists usually believe that the world and all living things were created in six 24-hour days. While there has been some argument about whether or not creation took 6 day or 6 thousand years because of 2 peter 3:8 (one day is with the Lord as a thousand years), please assume in this article that I am talking about six literal days.

Creationists also believe in a worldwide flood. The water is believed to have come from underground springs and an atmospheric water canopy. The water canopy, which would be much denser than the clouds nowadays, would have created a superior climate. The Bible talks about the opening of "the windows of heaven" (NKJV), which can be explained by the theory of the water canopy. It would also be the explanation as to why wooly mammoths have been found buried with food still in their mouths.

Creationists also explain the earth's layers with the flood. The Mt. St. Helens eruption, which as stated previously produced fossils of upright trees, also produced thousands of geologic layers in a matter of days. The fossils found within the layers would be expected if there would be a worldwide flood. The dead animals would float at first but given enough time, would sink and become fossilized. The process of fossilization would be much easier underwater than dry ground.

The sudden explosion between the Precambrian and Cambrian period can also be explained by creationists. These animals were created by God, and then when the flood came, they were cooked alive by the underwater springs.

As stated above, fossils would be fossilized much easier in a worldwide flood than on dry ground. The reason is because when animals would sink, the sediment would quickly cover the animal because of the water currents.

Almost all the animals in the world would have been killed; the only exception would be the animals in the ark. Consequently, there would be heaps of animals on the floor. Great groups of fossils would have been created. Big fossil graveyards would have been created. The same fossil graveyards that evolution has failed to explain.

Behemoth/Brachiosaurus statue
Behemoth/Brachiosaurus statue

Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs?

Many people think that the bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. They use this as an excuse for not believing in creation. The fact is, there are 3 animals in the bible that are unfamiliar to us. These animals are the tanniyn, behemoth and the leviathan. The bible gives a very detailed description of the behemoth and the leviathan.

Here's the description of the behemoth:

  • He eateth grass as an ox (KJV, Job 40:15)
  • He moveth his tail like a cedar (KJV, Job 40:17)
  • His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron (KJV, Job 40:18)


It is obvious that it is a large land animal if the bible compares his tail with a cedar and his bones with brass and iron. What is this animal? Earlier, it was hypothesized that it could be an elephant or a hippotamus, but both of these animals don't have big tails, at least not as big as a cedar. The description fits a dinosaur like the brachiosaurus better.

The leviathan's description is even more interesting. It first asks "Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook?" (KJV, Job 41:1) With this question, it is safe to conclude that it is a water animal. The bible further describes Leviathan as the following:

  • His teeth are terrible round about (KJV, Job 41:14)
  • His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal (KJV, Job 41:15)
  • Out of his nostrils go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out (KJV, Job 41:19)
  • In his neck remaineth strength (KJV, Job 41:22)
  • The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: He esteemeth iron as straw and brass as rotten wood (KJV, Job 41:26-27)


Again, leviathan has been hypothesized to be modern animals, such as an alligator or a crocodile. The description of the Bible by far doesn't fit any of these animals. They don't have scale, nor do they breathe fire. Also, they aren't tough enough that they can stand a sword struck at them. Therefore, it would probably be a fire breathing dinosaur. At first, it may sound far-fetched, but Clarifying Christianity says:

"Many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these unexplained passages. Would it make sense that some dinosaurs used those passages as "gas tanks" for the combustible mixture used to "breathe fire?" We believe it does."

The bombardier beetle also throws out fire, not out of its mouth, but out of its behind! As funny as it may seem, it does give a good point. If a beetle can do it, so could a ferocious animal who can withstand a sword.

There is a lot of scientific evidence pointing towards creation and away from evolution. Therefore, people shouldn't just think that evolutionists got everything figured out, because they don't. In fact, as you've just seen, they are very far from figuring everything out. So it always good to investigate what is believed by a person. Just because something is believed by the majority of the world doesn't mean it's true!

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Eddie Schultz 14 months ago

      Why don't you answer Dr Kim's comment from 21 months ago? Here it is.

      "Doctor Kim 21 months ago from Denver, Colorado

      Interesting but like all creationist theorists you don't cite any references. Your Biblical verses are present but you don't provide any actual evidence for the science. Reference your "statements of facts" with actual studies. For example, give me the reference citing the fossilization of tree as a result of the Mount St Helen's explosion so I can look it up myself (just like the Bible verses you provide). Without these references you carry no credibility when making such statements. With them, your position is much stronger and credible."

      And show your sources for these assertions by you.

      "Most people don't realize that creationism isn't entirely based on superstition and unscientific reasoning. There are a lot of scientific evidence of a young earth that is thousands of years old, and not millions/billions."

      There is NO evidence for an earth that is thousands of years old, only on creation sites that must defend their religious ideologies. Prove me wrong!

      If you believe the earth is only thousands of years old, how old do you believe the universe is?

    • Doctor Kim profile image

      Kimberly Bjugstad 2 years ago from Denver, Colorado

      Interesting but like all creationist theorists you don't cite any references. Your Biblical verses are present but you don't provide any actual evidence for the science. Reference your "statements of facts" with actual studies. For example, give me the reference citing the fossilization of tree as a result of the Mount St Helens explosion so I can look it up myself (just like the Bible verses you provide). Without these references you carry no credibility when making such statements. With them, your position is much stronger and credible.

    • profile image

      Kenneth 3 years ago

      You may also want to add that DNA has a form of proofreading that tries to stop mutation almost all mutations that make it through are detrimental to life more can be read here

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_polymerase

    • Hendrika profile image

      Hendrika 3 years ago from Pretoria, South Africa

      I totally believe that God created everything. That said it cannot be ignored that within species there have been some adaptations, our appendix and wisdom teeth are good examples. With a more refined diet we do not need them any more. Also without a doubt each generation are born more intelligent to be able to learn more and more as everything progress

    • Lee Lee 513 profile image

      Schandee Decker 3 years ago from Granville, New York

      Very well written, I think either way a person goes the Darwin theory, the Big Bang theory or God's creation. The bottom line seems to be Faith, none are conclusive but it's all in how we the reader interpret and process the information. Good job. :)

    • profile image

      Sanctuary 3 years ago

      The Bible might be the book of the day. Still it clearly illustrates that since the beginning of time that mankind has had a relationship and knowledge of God. Before the Jews became Gods chosen people, they were simply people who came from somewhere. Genesis is a pre Bible in effect to the Bible and its no surprise that stories other then the Bible contain the same story. An ancient script recently found describes the great flood and the story of the Ark. As usual the archeologist finds it reason to dismiss the Bible in his article. I am finding absolute facts to be quite challenging but I do not dismiss God or consider faith irrational. Most facts can only be measured in percentages for even writings can only be written by what you know and what others are capable of understanding.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 4 years ago

      Oddly, I think some form of both ideas exist but we are a long ways from calling either a fact. In other wards are ideas of both are a long way from any proof. We are no way close to understanding DNA or Genetics. One Dog and we have created several hundred breeds but no one is crossing species and if they did it probably never naturally occurs. People want to believe that genes make them a certain way, yet anyone who has agent orange poisoning has a gene to prove it. Its obvious that they could not be born with this gene active, yet it's a good excuse not to provide benefits. There are hundreds of examples of unknown oddities and the research is a long ways off. In Job, God ask Job if he was there when the Universe was created and Job knew nothing. If DNA was possible there is no telling what species are the same species today and vice versa. The argument is often a moot point because man always eliminates God with knowledge and attempts to play God. Some things are so large that a book on the subject would be the size of a planet if we had such information. Then again we often deny that science sometimes is right and it might be us discovering Gods plan. The only real argument is telling people that its a simple theory and theories are only ideas and not proven facts. Something this big is way beyond simple and if the answer is not on Earth then we are a long ways from finding the proof.

    • Justin Westwood profile image

      Justin Westwood 4 years ago from Hurst, Texas

      I can and have built a better mousetrap, a mousetrap is an antiquated way of catching and killing mice, hence people no longer r&d mousetraps. It's a simple and crude semi-mechanical contraption that is only used in engineering classes as projects. No one wants to pay more than a $1.25 trap that works perfectly fine as it is. I built one in the same dimensions as a basic mousetrap would guarantee a headless and ultimately dead mouse. So the argument that a mousetrap cannot be altered is flawed. Spring tension, denser metals, electro-capAcitive touch sensors could all improve mousetrap funtionality, but who would pay for this?

    • Stormy1990 profile image
      Author

      Stormy1990 5 years ago

      Thanks! Most people don't realize that creationism isn't entirely based on superstition and unscientific reasoning. There are a lot of scientific evidence of a young earth that is thousands of years old, and not millions/billions.

    • HoneyBB profile image

      Honey Halley 5 years ago from Illinois

      This was very informative with many interesting facts. Thanks for sharing.

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      Hi Stormy,

      Very gracious and thoughtful of you. And no apologies are necessary. Writing is an incomplete medium of communication. We miss things all the time.

      Personally, I believe when all the truth is known (if it ever is) we'll find that it will be some combination of a variety of 'truths' now thought to be immutable.

      I just think our chances of finding the truth are limited if we decide what the truth is before observing. This is where I think we are headed if we stand on doctrine, regardles of whether that doctrine is rational or faith based.

      cheers

    • Stormy1990 profile image
      Author

      Stormy1990 5 years ago

      Dear Anton,

      First of all, I owe you an apology. After reading through some of the hubs and discovering that you are an agnostic (or something very similar), I printed out your comment because out of curiosity I wanted to read it again that night. I should have done this before I replied, because I can always think more clearly reading off a piece of paper then staring at a glaring computer screen. Is it just my imagination??

      Anyway, after rereading your comment again and thinking about it a little more deeply, I realized that I didn't give you a fair reply. Especially when replying to your remark about when I said

      "Unlike evolutionists, creationists seek the truth."

      I admit, that I shouldn't have wrote that. You are right when you said that I was antagonistic for suggesting otherwise. Evolutionists really are trying to find the truth, and even though I personally don't think they're heading in the right direction, I have no right to say that they are not "seeking the truth."

      Again, I admit that the big bang theory is not part of the evolution theory, but the two theories are secular and from a christian's point of view, can be rolled into one secular theory about how the universe as we know it began.

      As I stated before, one creation theory attempting to explain how all the animals fit in the ark is that there was one basic kind of each animal that entered into the ark. There was two dogs, two cats, etc. I understand that there is no scientific proof that this would have been enough to repopulate a species, but, as you said, creationists are bound by their beliefs. It is important to remember that, according to the bible it was God, not Noah who led all the animals into the ark. If God was powerful enough to gather all the animals, he was certainly powerful enough to handpick the best of every kind of living creatures! It is possible that he even specially created these "basic" animals for the sole purpose of repopulating and forming different kinds of similar species, nobody knows!

      You say that the bible isn't a scientific book. Well, I agree wholeheartedly. This is where the idea of faith comes in. Faith is believing in the unseen. We may never understand it all, but our duty as christian is to have faith even though we don't understand! The bible says, With God, all things are possible. Because of this verse, even though something is not scientifically possible, Christians will still believe... They can always say that God is supernatural, that is, above the natural laws of the universe. This is what makes it so hard for secular scientists to accept creationism. They say that science can't accept the supernatural.

      The more I think about it, the more I acknowledge the fact that creationists may never totally disprove the theory of evolution, and neither can evolution ever disprove the theory of creation (if I may call it a theory scientifically).

      Last of all, please note that this document was originally a research paper I wrote in my senior year of high school. While this paper was written approximately five years ago, I thought it would be interesting to publish it online. I have been writing on other sites, but I decided to publish the research paper on hubpages. Thus far I haven't regretted this decision because of the wonderful community here! If you see anything else that needs to be improved upon, please tell me and I will see what I can do!

      Goodbye, my friend Anton! Thanks again for the comment!

      P.S. I hope you understand that this comment was written before I've read your second comment. I have no internet in my bedroom so instead of sneaking downstairs and publishing this reply at 1AM in the night, I waited until after I woke to put it on. :D

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      Hi Stormy,

      "are many facts that correlate with creationism and/or refute evolution."

      This is a good starting point for the discussion. But must also be stated is that there are many other facts that correlate with evolution and refute creationism.

      A verticle tree in a million fossil record can be rationlized, just as a dragon can be rationalized, but both are speculation.

      Odds are that the truth, if we ever know it, will be something other than either theory..

      cheers

    • Stormy1990 profile image
      Author

      Stormy1990 5 years ago

      First of all, Anton, I would like to thank you for your comment. As you can see, it is the very first comment I have gotten here on hubpages. ;)

      Now for some explanations…

      “Unlike evolutionists, creationists seek the truth.”

      Your response to this was that evolutionists “explains things” and creationists, who refer to the bible, “tend to break down.” You say I didn’t apply any reasoning to the above statement in my hub.

      Two sentences later, I said, “Creationists actually compare the scientific facts pointing to creation and evolution.”

      What I mean by this is that there are many facts that correlate with creationism and/or refute evolution. Here are just a few examples:

      There have been fossils found that span millions of years of geologic layers. (such as upright trees)

      There has been found numerous fossil graveyards (large groups of fossils)

      A slight modification of a vital organ would prove a fatality… A series of slight modifications of an organism is a major component of evolution.

      These are just a few facts. If you want more, read around on the internet, there are plenty of sites that don’t support evolution.

      “"Evolutionists believe that the stars, planets, and moons were created by what is known as the big bang theory." - Evolutionists have nothing to say about anything that is not alive. The big bang theory is part of physics and cosmology. Evoloution concerns itself with living systems, once you get past the abiogenesis part.”

      While it is true that the big bang theory is not part of the theory of evolution, but they are rather two separate theories, many scientists, including most evolutionists, tie these two theories together when explaining the origins of the world as we see today.

      "the only exception would be the animals in the ark." - And yet we know, KNOW, that two animals of a species will not be sufficient to populate a species… …Could we even fit two of every kind of animal inside something the size of the ark, and if we couldn't, where did the other species come from after the flood? (evolution?).

      I am glad you asked about this, and I will be writing another hub focusing entirely on Noah’s flood, but basically, creationists have theorized (yes, it’s just an unproved theory) that the ark didn’t have all the different species of the world, but merely just one basic kind of each animal. For example, there would have only been one wolf/dog, only one cat/lion/tiger, only one monkey/ape… While I honestly don’t know to how basic the animal was, you get the picture!

      P.S. I want to say thank-you for the idea of interviewing a evolutionist and a creationist. I will look into this!

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      Hello Stormy,

      I managed to get through a good portion of your article, thinking about what you were saying, and preparing a reasoned response.

      Then I came across this line:

      "Unlike evolutionists, creationists seek the truth."

      This is exactly why a reasoned debate between those that believe evolution explains things and those that believe the bible does tend to break down. There is no reason applied in the above statement.

      Those who are truthfully looking for answers to this questions are seeking truth, no matter which side they believe. It is simply antagonistic to suggest otherwise. It is common for either side to simply call the other either a liar or politically motivated or stupid or unstudied or lacking faith or arrogant or. . .

      The bible is not a scientific document. It never was nor does it pretend to be. Those looking for science in the bible will continue to run into contradictions, questionable observatinons and poor documentation.(some minor, some major) that bely its use as a scientific document.

      Some some other details:

      "Evolutionists believe that the stars, planets, and moons were created by what is known as the big bang theory."

      Evolutionists have nothing to say about anything that is not alive. The big bang theory is part of physics and cosmology. Evoloution concerns itself with living systems, once you get past the abiogenesis part. (The strongest argument against the 'it just happened' theory which encompasses all of what you detail, by the way, in my humble opinion).

      "the only exception would be the animals in the ark."

      And yet we know, KNOW, that two animals of a species will not be sufficient to populate a species. It is not enough to say, 'the ark explains all the land animals left in the world now'. Could we even fit two of every kind of animal inside something the size of the ark, (we have a very difficulat time keeping any animals alive and productive or sane under the conditions that the ark supposes.) and if we couldn't, where did the other species come from after the flood? (evolution?).

      As to the rest of your articles' stated flaws in evolution, yep the theory hasn't answered many of the questions you pose. You have valid questions to ask.

      But the bible hasn't answered any of them. You are choosing to ignore the continued development of the theory in favour of a non scientific several thousand year old document.

      A major difference between the two positions is that scientists are still working on the evolutionary theory. Creationists are bound by their beliefs and must reconcile their findings to that which is consistent with their notion of what the bible is telling them.

      The bible is not normally something the faithful are going to allow to be rewritten. (despite the fact that it has been edited, rewritten, translated, adapted, abridged, modernized, interpreted,etc for thousands of years)

      Some of what you say are good questions to ask evolutionists. I haven't yet heard a good reason of how the purposed activity of life comes out of the random, non purposed motion of matter governed by very discernable and describable rules. But rather than assume evolutionists don't care about the truth, ask them. Ask them why they believe what they believe. Get them to show you the data. Not the study, the data. Talk to the evolutionary scientist.

      The same way I would go to a biblical authority to ask about the bible, not to an evolutionist to tell me why the bible is wrong.

      cheers