Question...

[WillowPeredhel]

Hi!

For a school project, I'm going to research the top five arguments for creation and the top five arguments for evolution. I've already acquired lots of evolutionist arguements, and I would really appreciate it if y'all could come up with some creationist answers for me.

What do you think are the five best arguments/reasons that support creation?
What do you think are the five best books for supporting creation?
What do you think are the five best web sites for supporting creation?

Much thanks for all replies. :smile:

Willow Peredhel

[WillowPeredhel]

Is there anyone who can give me some input? If I can't find some arguments for my paper here, I may have to come up with them out of thin air - and I'm really not good at that. Please? :bow:

Willow

[zorathruster]

Is there anyone who can give me some input? If I can't find some arguments for my paper here, I may have to come up with them out of thin air - and I'm really not good at that. Please? :bow:

Willow
Evolution:

DNA is a common component of most all life on the planet. (prions being a notable exception) It is a "common" building block. So much so that DNA is common in organisms backward toward a common ancestor. Humans share some sections of DNA with a common sponge type organism. The quantity of common DNA relates to how long it has been since the organisms had a common ancestor. Other primates, the chimpanze has 99% common DNA structure with the human.

Many adequate but not "best" designs are retained in organisms that survive. For example the human eye has a blind spot. The squid eye does not. But for those animals that came up out of the sea to live on land, the eye with the blind spot was adequate. For humans to have many adequate (in common with other mammals) but not best design features (eye, appendix, hips) would not be the case if an omnipotent and all knowing entity were to design from scratch a new and different creature.

[kaleidoscopic]

Who says that some evolutionary adaptations are "adequate"? For instance, just because humans have a blind spot in their vision does not mean our sight is only adequate. The fact that adaptations survive evolution means that they are the best (survival of the most fit). The fact that we are unable to understand the purpose of them does not mean the are not necessary. In addition, just because the creator ( assuming he does in fact exist ) is omnipotent it doesn't mean he would create all things perfect. The beauty in all things lies in the flaws ( consider a handmade rug in contrast to a machined one--which is the most beautiful and valuable?).

[zorathruster]

The fact that adaptations survive evolution means that they are the best (survival of the most fit). The fact that we are unable to understand the purpose of them does not mean the are not necessary.
That is not a correct statement. The better statement would be, the reason a particular characteristic continues is that it is part of a survivable combination which is not all best (survival of the most fit). Marcupials have a totally different way of justation than egg layers. Mammals have a totally different way of justation than marcupials. To say that only the best survive would mean that one or the other would survive currently. Since egg layers, marcupials and mammals currently coexist one cannot say that they are all, "the best".

[Jorge]

Is there anyone who can give me some input? If I can't find some arguments for my paper here, I may have to come up with them out of thin air - and I'm really not good at that. Please? :bow:

WillowI didn't see this until just now (3:00 PM, 30 NOV 04) so it's probably too late for your paper. If it's not to late let me know and I'll provide something.

Jorge