Creationism

What do you mean no evidence? I'll hit you with two. 1. Irreducible Complexity. There are many mechanisms in the human body that need all of the parts to be in place for the mechanism to function. Not just in humans, Either. All organisms have many cellular and genetic mechanisms that enable it to function. The parts in these mechanisms could not have evolved by chance. Some examples are blood clotting, The human eye, The knee joint, And the upright stature of humans. Another example is the human foot. I'll dive into this one a bit more. The arched foot of humans is vastly different from the flat feet of apes, And it enables humans to stand upright as we do. The foot has a bone in it that is like the keystone of an arch - without the keystone, The whole arch would fall. Many other bones are wedge-shaped to make the arch strong. Without the keystone bone or the wedge-shaped bones, The foot wouldn't function properly and thus could not evolve from a non-arched structure, Notably the flat feet of apes. Another aspect of this is the over-design of man. Humans have 25 different facial muscles that enable us to make facial expressions. According to evolution, Different functions only evolve if there is a survival advantage. There is no survival advantage to smiling or frowning, So it wouldn't evolve by natural selection. Also, The skillful human hand is very over-designed. Of course, Evolutionists say that human hands had a survival advantage, Such as for throwing spears and building dens, But human hands can do so much more. Humans have the potential for amazing skill in fields such as music, Medicine, Engineering, And poetry. Evolution cannot explain how the hand is perfectly wired to hold a pencil or a pen between the thumb and middle finger. The biggest evidence of over-design is probably the human brain, Which has the power to do much more than what is needed to survive. One more aspect is "beauty for beauty's sake". In the journal "Trends in Ecology and Evolution", Volume 6, Issue 5, John Maynard Smith writes, "No topic in evolutionary biology has presented greater difficulties for theorists [than beauty]. " He's right. Examples of beauty in nature such as peacock feathers pose a major challenge to evolution. Peacock feathers' only function is to create a beautiful display. The feathers hinder flying and make the peacock more vulnerable to predators. Some say that the peacock uses its feathers to attract a mate, But many birds and other animals use simple calls, Showing that no intricate beauty is needed for mating. Beauty like this is exactly what we'd expect, Knowing that a Creator made us all and put beauty in the world for our enjoyment. Even Darwin recognized this issue. He said, "A great number of male animals have been rendered beautiful for beauty's sake. " Many other aspects of creation, Such as birdsongs, Flowers, Tropical fish, And humans show evidence of clear design by a Designer who is God. 2. The Transcendental Argument for God First off, I just want to mention that God doesn't believe in atheists. The Bible teaches that everyone knows that God exists because He has revealed Himself, And that anyone who tries to suppress this truth is "without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). The atheists have essentially convinced themselves that they believe that there is no God; essentially they believe that they believe there is no God. The transcendental argument is this: Without God, We couldn't prove anything at all. Essentially, The existence of the biblical God is requisite for knowledge and rationality. There are many inconsistencies that an atheist makes every day. Consider an atheist biology professor. He teaches that humans are simply chemical accidents - just one end of a long and purposeless evolutionary chain. But then, When he gets home, He kisses his wife and hugs his children like they were more than accidents, Like they were valuable, Irreplaceable people deserving of respect and love. Also, If an atheist watches the news and hears about a murder, He will most likely get enraged and will hope that the murderer is punished. But if evolution was true, That murder was essentially like a lion killing an antelope - but we don't punish the lion! Also, There are logical inconsistencies that atheists make. I'm not saying that atheists can't think rationally - they surely can - but only because there's a logical God who, When He created the universe, Created the laws of logic following His logical nature. The laws of logic are immaterial, So according to materialism, They can't exist, But yet they do. An atheist can't account for the laws of logic without a logical God who created them. The laws also don't change with time. Take the law of gravity. You can't wake up one morning to find that everything is floating because the law of gravity changed overnight. You don't expect that with the laws of math either - The answer to 1 1 will always be 2, It will never be 3. You won't expect laws of logic like modus ponens or the law of non-contradiction to just fall out of order or change overnight, Or at anytime. The laws will always stay fixed and will never change. The atheist cannot account for 1. The existence of the laws, 2. Why they are immaterial, 3. Why they are universal (non-contradiction works just as well in Africa as it does in America), 4. Why they don't change with time, And 5. How humans can possibly know about them or their properties. Even many of the first and most famous modern scientists, Such as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, And Raymond Damadian believed in a biblical worldview, And they established their respective fields because they thought that if God really exists, Then the universe should be logical and orderly, And we should be able to measure it. That's exactly what we see. This may confuse you a little bit, And that's fine. I also want to address the supposed 98% DNA link between humans and apes. While the whole human genome has been available since 2001, The whole chimp genome has not. So the 98% statistic is only based off of the fragments of the chimp genome that they have encoded. The use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. They say that the 1. 23 percent that is differences are single base pair substitutions, Which doesn't sound like a lot - until you realize that 1. 23 percent is about 35 million differences! But that only scrapes the surface. About 40-45 million differences are pairs that humans have, But chimps don't, And a further 40-45 million chimp pairs that are absent from man! That puts the total amount of differences at 125 million. But wait, There's more. There are many differences between humans and chimps that are not quantifiable as percentages. Shingo Kakuo, Kazuo Asaoka, And Toshinori Ide write in their journal article, "Human Is a Unique Species among Primates in Terms of Telomere Length", "At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called telomeres. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23, 000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10, 000 long. " Shorter telomeres show evidence of human uniqueness. Also, A comparison of the number of genes in gene families shows that humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Those differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between chimps and humans, Irrespective of the base pairs. Even more so, Not all of the data supports human-chimp common ancestry as nicely as they expect. More of the DNA tests show human-gorilla of chimp-gorilla than human-chimp. I'm sorry, But this will be my only argument post, Not because of lack of evidence (we have an abundance), But because I got the computer taken away. :/ Sorry.