Evolution vs Creationism

Introduction The theory of Creation has been widely accepted for an extended period of time. Relatively recently (as far as world history is concerned), with the advent of Charles Darwin, a new theory has come around. At first considered pseudoscience [1], it is now know as the theory of Evolution. First I will mention some of the problems with the Theory of Evolution. Then I will discuss some reasons why Creationism is the only reasonable alternative. Problems with Evolution The first problem with evolution is the fact that it fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place. Our universe should not exist. Now, I"ve heard it said that origins had something to do with "quantum fluctuations" [2]. However, I would ask the dutiful apologist where those came from. Everything had to have some beginning from another source. Evolution fails to explain that source. The second problem is with the theory of creatures evolving into another creature entirely. Not only has this never been demonstrated in the least (laboratory or otherwise), but we have no evidence whatsoever in the fossil record for it. On many occasions a "missing link" has been proudly touted by the evolutionists, only to find it is at best a result of overactive imagination, at worst a fraud. Take Nebraska Man, for instance [3]. Scientists found a single tooth among some ancient tools. Based on this single tooth, the scientists cried missing link. Pictures were draw of a man-ape, based on one tooth! [4]. Later, It was shown that the tooth belonged to a peccary. Overall, we have no missing links available to us, which is in stark contrast to the multitudes we should see. Here is an excerpt from Peter Kreeft"s website discussing the improbability of evolution. "Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God." [5] Reasons for Creation One of the main arguments for Creation is the argument from design. In creation, we see many kinds of specific design, even more than just the fact that anything exists at all. Many parts of creation seem to exist for no particular reason of survival, but enjoyment only. Take natural beauty, for instance. There is no conceivable way that our beautiful world, solar system, galaxy, and universe were made so exquisitely by chance. There is no reason for it to be so, unless a designer made it that way intentionally [6]. Another reason is that the winding up of our galaxy only allows a maximum period of a few hundred million years for its existence. Of course, I believe that the galaxy (and the whole universe) is much younger than this, however, that is the absolute greatest age that it could be, contrary to the supposed 13.6 Billion years (with a B). Why is this? It is because the inner parts of the arms of our galaxy spin faster than the outer parts. As a result of this, over time, the galaxy would "unwind" and become a blob or disc. Not the detailed spiral it actually is. As a result, it must be much younger than 13.6 billion years [8] Sources: [1] http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] https://www.google.com... [5] http://www.peterkreeft.com... [6] https://answersingenesis.org... [7] http://www.universetoday.com... [8] http://www.icr.org...