Creationism Vs. Evolution Essay

Scientists have found that the Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. As gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps, it became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System. Although scientists are very close to answering the question, they still continue to search for the exact answer to how the Earth was created. With all the evidence presented, it is hard to refute from scientific theories. This becomes cumbersome to many religions because in their eyes God has always been the creator of the Earth.

The young earth and old earth was not always a debated topic. Before the 18th century not many people believed in an old earth, the majority of people believed that it was about 6,000 years old. But during the 1700s, people began to challenge the age of the earth. Three of the many men who advanced the theory

Since the beginning of the human race there has been a lingering question as to the origins of man and how all living things acquired their characteristics. The two main theories that arose over time were Creationism and Evolution, both of which provided very distinct answers to this question. Creationism based its answer on the idea of a supernatural power or being that created the entire universe, man and the numerous other organisms that live within it. While, Evolution theorizes that all living things have the potential to change and grow over time into something new and different. So in other words, one theory suggests that humans and all the organisms on Earth are the result of divine design, while the other indicates that they

The theory of evolution, as set forth by Charles Darwin in 1859, stated that all plant and animal life evolved over long periods of time from simple to more complicated forms through mutation and adaptation. He also taught that only the fittest of each species would survive. He further postulated that the first living cell evolved in a "warm warm little pond" and that it took billions of years for the present diversity of living things to evolve. At the time, it was thought that the few "missing links" in the fossil record would be soon filled.(Darwin, 1927 ). Today, however, there is today a considerable body of scientific evidence that refutes this entire theory.

Radiometric dating is still being used today. Modern uranium-lead radioactive dating of meteorites and earth materials gives us today's estimate that the earth is about 4.5 billion years

Young- Earth view point on the age of earth is based on not only science but the Bible as well. There try to combine the two areas in an effort to present the true age of the earth. One of the areas they use is how long it takes for material to harden. They present

Because science does not have an omniscient back-up source, any lack of explanation for current phenomenon is easily construed as a weakness to a scientifically unsophisticated audience, placing the burden of proof unfairly at the feet of science. Despite these tactics, a thorough explanation of current scientific understanding eliminates any question of doubt about the age of the Earth, and can directly combat what Young-Earthers consider their strongest claims.

Evolution theory is not true because it gives a vague explanation of how the world developed to be what it is today and it also fails to explain why it is no longer going on today. As absurd as it is there are people in the world today who believe it majority of them being atheist.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? If God created the earth and no one was around to see it, did it still happen? The answer to both of these questions is yes. Because of the Bible, we know that God created the earth in a literal 6, 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago. Many Christian think God may have used evolution and creation but that is not a viable theory. Methods such as Carbon Dating cannot be trusted because they have been proven inaccurate over and over again. Because radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, the literal Genesis account of creation is the one and only viable answer to where this world came from.

In 1820 another French man named James Fourier took the next step in estimating the Earth’s age. He accounted for the fact that the Earth is still hot in its core and using mathematical techniques that he developed and we still use today for time-varying phenomena, came up with a number too staggering foe him to write down. He did however leave us his equations and it is easy to plug in the same numbers and get the answer that he could not say, which comes out to be 100 million years. (Gribbin, 16)

The fossil record is evidence of evolution. Fossils are often fingerprints of evolution. They help scientists track how species evolved

It has been known for well over a century now that the Earth’s core, mantle and the crust make up the basic structure of the Earth. However, there is some controversy over how and when the Earth produced its core, mantle and crust. In this essay, I will first discuss about the formation of the Early Earth and its Moon, then about the methods used to pinpoint the age of the Earth. Other than that, I will also expand on core and mantle formation, as well as the eventual production of the continental crust.

The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans.” (Answers in Genesis 1). Despite the many claims that “evolution” simply means a change, scientifically speaking it means much more. Evolutionary ideals describe changes that allow scientists to date life on the earth to be 4.5 billion years, to trace the entire living population of every animal, insect, plant, virus, and bacteria back to one simple cell, and to conclude that the first cell supposedly came into being sporadically from a pool of organic molecules (Archean 1). Science cannot factually support evolutionary concepts because evolution cannot be tested; observation holds a critical role for experiments to take place, yet spontaneous creation of a cell has not recurred since the alleged first living cell created itself. Evolution cannot be proven, and therefore, the public school system should not teach evolution as fact, especially with no exposure to alternative concepts.

Genesis 1:27 states that, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Coogan 13). This is significant because it is clearly stated in the Bible that humanity is located within the created order of God. However, Darwin’s theory challenges the interpretation of the Bible, and the origins of human being (McGrath 372). Darwin’s theory of natural selection simply states that humanity has emerged within the natural order (McGrath 372). There have been many Christian responses to Darwinism, one in specific named young earth creationism (McGrath 372). This represents the idea that the Earth was created in its basic form between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago (McGrath 372). Young earth creationists believe that all living things were created simultaneously, within the timeframe proposed by the Genesis accounts (McGrath 372). They in addition believe in the flood of Noah which describes a global event that destroyed all life on earth expect for those brought on board on the ark (McGrath 372). Assuming that the flood of Noah did occur, creationists hold to perspectives that the fossils are the result of the flood (McGrath

textbooks or taught by teacher. However, few students really think it through that is the evolution theory brought out by Darwin really reliable? In fact, I think there are still many uncertainties and flaws in this theory. For example, Darwin indicated that the force to make evolution happen is gene mutation. But we all know that almost all the gene mutation will lead to death because of abnormal biological processes. Like what Darwin has said, since the survivors must be more outstanding and more suitable to the environment, how could it be a product of gene mutation? It’s one of the illogical point in this theory. Besides, I don’t think scientists gave a really good explain of the fossils. Like I won’t believe that it’s true when archaeologist