Well I’m no expert on this and I’m sure we’re going to get a lot of posts about it, from a lot of people who know a lot more about it than me, but here’s my take on this anyway.

The big bang itself doesn’t explain creation at all and if there were a big bang then we’d have to go back to what caused it in order to understand creation.

As far as evolution goes, I have no problem with the idea that a giraffes for example have long necks and the food that they needed was high of the ground so only the ones with long necks survived.

What doesn’t make much sense to me is that there were apes and are apes, so why would some apes have become people and others not?

Many species have died out but many look very similar to how they always did, so in short I’d say that the discovery that the “habilis” and “erectus” are sister species that overlapped for around 500,000 years during which time they co-existed, is pretty convincing and indicates that man was always man and didn’t evolve from something else.

As mentioned, man and ape remain different species and lived in the same place(s) for a very long time.

What’s more;

a) The Australopithecines, (A. africanus, A. afarensis, A. robustus, A. boisei, Lucy, etc.) are all apes.

Whereas;

b) Homo erectus and Neanderthal used tools and have brain sizes that overlap with humans.

Evolution is not converging;

Instead of converging on a coherent pathway to man, a single fossil find throws the entire picture into disarray.

Apes have 48 chromosomes and man only 46.

I must confess that I’d never considered that if something were capable of creating life that it would also be capable of creating evolution.

There was what I’d describe as a fairly important transitional find in April 2006.

It was a 375 million year old fossil which now goes by the name of Tiktaalik.

What’s of particular interest is that Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills, but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins.

Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes’, but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do.

In short, it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates.

Tiktaalik doesn’t of course prove that man evolved from apes but it does show how one form can mutate into another.

This image shows a reconstruction of Tiktaalik alongside a cast of its fossil.

There is a very common argument that evolution is simply a theory, and not a fact, and this argument is often voiced against the exclusive teaching of evolution.

This argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" as used by scientists.

Whereas in common usage, "theory" most often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena".

Evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact.

Facts and theories are different things, and not simply rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

Facts are the world’s data.

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.

I believe that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, and whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered means, is not important.

What is important, is the "fact" that humans evolved from apes.

Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn’t amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match with everyone having their own opinion, but it’s the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff.

Keep in mind that “evidence” is not the same as “proof”.

Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether, and if we had proof, then the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.

Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see and life is therefore the product of intelligent contrivance.

Do we find apparent design in biology? “Yes”.

In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm and when we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.

Concept and design required an intelligent designer, so even though recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise, but upon empirical observation and logic, it certainly has theological implications.

Evolution however stresses the naturalistic, random, and undirected descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor who originally evolved from inorganic matter.

It purports that life is the product of random chance but what we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality.

The British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism – “natural selection” but that was 150 years ago and today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation.

With the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty to sixty years we’ve been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown.

Today’s evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years and until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains, meaning space, time, matter and energy, came into being from nothing which is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place?

Until Evolutionists find the evidence that they’ve sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement which was about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all since Creation is the default.

I just read that a doctor by the name of Kent Hovind has increased his reward to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution, from $10,000 to $250,000

The reward has been on offer since 1990 and nobody has yet been able to claim it.

His article starts with:

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that;

A highly ordered universe exists.

At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.

Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being;

The universe was created by God.

The universe always existed.

The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

And if you’re interested, you can find more info and details on how to claim your reward at Kent Hovind’s offer.

I’d never really thought much about Creationism vs Darwinism until I read the question here, and then some of the answers.

Anyway I checked out a few evolution sites and found much of the information on them to be similar to the following;

One Scenario Of The Origin Of Life:

In the primordial seas, meteorites fell, bringing organic molecules with them.

Volcanoes and thermal vents belched simple molecules like methane and in this soup of carbon compounds, nucleic acids developed as lightning or UV radiation welded simple molecules into complex ones. They bunched into RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules. This happened many times, and eventually, one developed that could replicate itself.

The first cell developed when a capsule formed of meteorite compounds or lipids trapped an RNA molecule inside. This shell protected the molecule inside from various hazards. Inside the protective shell, more advanced processes became possible, such as protein assembly.

These were the first simple bacteria and they quickly took up various niches. Some used hydrogen sulfide as an energy source, some used sunlight for energy, and some ate other bacteria. The photosynthesizers produced free oxygen and drove the others away from this toxic gas. Some, however, adapted and used oxygen to turbocharge themselves, producing much more energy than before.

Some bacteria absorbed others and so eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) originated. Some photosynthesizers were engulfed and became chloroplasts. Some turbocharged bacteria became mitochrondria. And some cells grouped together into multicellular creatures.

Descendants of these creatures would later construct experiments like Stanley Miller’s and come up with amino acids, nucleic acids, and sugars in their test tubes. Others would look at meteorite compounds and find molecules that their ancestors may have used.

My reaction to the above?

Anybody that believes these ifs buts and maybes must be nuts, and I now agree that evolution should be taught as a theory and not a fact.

Creation purports the existence of a creator which exercised its creative abilities, created this world and the life-forms that we see.

It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth that concept and design require an intelligent designer.

Therefore, apparent design in biology should constitute evidence of a Creator/Designer.

Do we find apparent design in biology?

Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm and when we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a creator.

Evolution stresses the naturalistic, random and undirected descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor who originally evolved from inorganic matter, and purports that life is the product of random chance.

What we need here then, is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality.

British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying that much needed mechanism, "natural selection".

Today however we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation.

Due to the tremendous advances that have been made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we’ve been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown.

Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years, and until that mechanism is found, the theory of evolution simply lacks feasibility and credibility.

I just came across and article in the NY Times entitled Mammoth Hemoglobin Offers More Clues to Its Arctic Evolution

According to the article, a team led by Kevin L. Campbell of the University of Manitoba in Canada believe they’ve discovered how the once-tropical species might have adapted to living in arctic temperatures and they did so by reconstructing a mammoth’s hemoglobin.

Dr. Campbell’s work raises a somewhat astonishing possibility, which is that much of the physiology of extinct animals may one day be recoverable from the DNA extracted from their remains.

Adrian Lister, an expert on mammoth evolution at the Natural History Museum in London said, “It is a very exciting result and opens a new chapter in paleontology, a subject usually constrained to examining old bones and teeth”.

Despite their association with the frozen north, the present theory is that Mammoths originated in the tropics and then split apart from elephants some seven million years ago, after which they developed smaller ears, a thick fur coat and glands in their skin to keep the fur well oiled in order to adapt to the colder northern latitudes.

knopfman – the above is all fine and dandy but the main issue is avoided.

Why would the mammoth and elephant have split?

And why would the mammoth have gone north considering all the massive physical changes that it would entail?

This might be called science, but it’s definitely not logical.

You seems to forget that the changes took most probably at least dozens thousands of generations and maybe more. So even if “pre-mammoths” decide to migrate then that was with the speed of average hundreds meters per generation. People do migrate much much faster during last thousands years than that. And the reason of such migration can be obvious – too much animals within some area for being enough food, enough territory for all of them, so some groups have look for new territory. Or maybe even during thousands or hundreds years the continuously changing climate cause the genetic changes.

Second thing is – we can not assume that prehistoric elephant split into two – elephants and mammoths. I would say that more likely in every generations some minimal genetic changes has been done in some of the animals – in one or two specimens. Some changes were good for being better adopted to the environment so such animals were stronger and made more descendants that evolve further, some changes, possibly majority of nature experiments, were bad for being adopted to the environment so such specimens usually was weaker, had no descendants and such genetic changes didn’t survive.

This is most simple explanation of why some genetic changes were made and some not – very small genetic changes happened always, even today, even inside of the human beings, but only these changes that decide of specimen being stronger will stay and will be base of further changes in following generations, changes that decide of specimen being weaker decide that these changes won’t stay and evolve further.

Most important thing is – it’s done during at least dozens thousands generations to actually one genre change into another genre. It’s not like that that mom-elephant and dad-elephant decide to go North, their children are half-mammoths and grandchildren are mammoths. There is no need to decide for complicated changes or not, there is no such decision, there is just adjustment to the environment, a natural process. Otherwise there would be only one genre of primitive bacterium on the Earth and no any differentiation of the live in here.

In my humble opinion.

What a great, respectful, intelligent group of posts. It is more apt to make one consider when information is presented in such intelligent and respectful manner. Wish more posts were like this. As I study the fossil record, there is not, IMHO, the evidence to support the idea that “evolution is a fact”. I see this conclusion as more of an inference based on observations that are not measurable. The evidence is not there. This concerns me because it was these types of “conclusions” that judged the earth to be flat or the center of the universe. Mere guesses, based on limited information, but presented as true. Much like, for a more recent example, the concept that we evolved from apes. A concept I was taught to be fact when I was in high school but, with recent archaeological evidence, proven to be false. Now, it is believed that we evolved from an “ape like” creature. It makes one question the “facts” of science. Honestly, I do not see Creationism proven either. I feel one could only conclude either theory to be true based on “faith” alone.

Though many similarities may be cited between living apes and humans, the only historical evidence that could support the ape ancestry of man comes from fossils, and the fossil record of man and apes is very sparse.

Approximately 95% of all known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1% are vertebrates, i.e. animals with bones.

Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates, e.g. humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs (any of a number of small monkey-like nocturnal mammals that live in trees).

So because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study one.

Access to original fossil hominids is strictly limited by those who discovered them and is often confined to a few favoured evolutionists who agree with the discoverers’ interpretation of the fossil.

So most scientific papers on human evolution are based on casts of original specimens, or simply on published photos, measurements, and descriptions of them.

What’s more, since there is so much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes, or worse still, merely an extinct ape, there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a “hominid”, and as a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

One can’t differentiate between the fossil evidence for the evolution of man from apes without first understanding the basic anatomical and functional differences between human and ape skeletons.

And many students, if not most, are taught human evolution by teachers that have little or no knowledge of human anatomy, to say nothing of ape anatomy, and they are therefore totally unqualified to teach this subject.

I’m always surprised at discussions about God and Darwin.

A person only has to look at a flower, a tree, a fish or whatever to know that the universe had a creator.

Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, who specializes in the study of human origins says he’s determined that humans did not evolve from apes, but, rather, apes evolved from humans.

He said his findings come from a study of Ardipithecus ramidus, which was a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago, in what now is Ethiopia.

“People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us”.

It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees, but from studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or ‘Ardi’ (a partial female skeleton) we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas”.

Until Ardi was discovered, the earliest specimen of human evolutions was Australopithecus, a bipedal “ape man” that lived 1-4 million years ago, and the most famous member of the genus was the 3.2 million-year-old skeleton nicknamed “Lucy” that was found in 1974.

Ardi, White said, is older and more primitive than Lucy, belonging to a new type of early hominid that was neither chimpanzee nor fully human.

Lovejoy, White and other scientists present their research in a special Oct. 2 issue of the journal Science.

Geneticists know full well natural selection isn’t capable of maintaining the genome let alone improving it.

* See Mendel’s accountant.

The accusations of tendentious errors are acutely ironic given the amount of manipulation and spin used to present the peppered moth.

Haeckel’s embryos, cythanthropus, maintain the fiction of deep time etc etc.

* Mendel’s Accountant (MENDEL) is an advanced numerical simulation program for modeling genetic change over time and was developed collaboratively by Sanford, Baumgardner, Brewer, Gibson and ReMine.

Well if you’re unfamiliar with genomes or Mendel’s accountant or both then the three links below will hopefully be helpful.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/mendel-s-accountant-t2991.html

http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/hort/people/sanford.cfm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html