The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Evolution hasn't been proven (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Revision Suggestions

"It is my opinion, and the opinion of most creationists, that the evidence for evolution amounts to very little. "

Should "It is my opinion" be included here?

"Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight."

It should also be noted that sightless eyes shows a loss of infomation, not the gain that evolution requires. Flightless wings may provide other functions such as balance and cooling, and penguins use them for underwater "flight"

"For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. "

Is TO implying that the esophagus is poorly designed because if this? Because we cannot breathe as food passes the windpipe?!?! It should be mentioned that the possibility of choking greatly increases if one were able to breathe while swallowing.


Should "It is my opinion" be included here?

No - Please remove any references to self - I, me, my, etc. --Chris Ashcraft 02:07, 28 November 2005 (GMT)

"Many so-called "vestigial" organs have since been found to have useful functions that they still serve. In humans, the number of so-called vestigial organs numbered over one hundred, but that number has been reduced to zero.

In any case, vestigial organs—organs which no longer have a useful purpose—indicate a loss of genetic information, as predicted by the creation model, not a gain as required by the evolution hypothesis."



"This is undisputed but not an evidence for evolution. God used similar designs when creating different animals and plants. The only thing that makes one see this as an evidence for evolution is the assumption that God had nothing to do with the process of creation."

Maybe this should be reworded. It doesn't make sense to assert, "The only thing that makes one see this as an evidence for evolution is the assumption that God had nothing to do with the process of creation"; it would make more sense to say, "The only thing that makes one see this as an evidence for evolution is the assumption that if God created the world, he would have done it randomly" or something like that. It appears to me that the way the sentence is now, it's making a large assumption while accusing naturalists of making one. The assumption is that if God created the world, he could not have or would not have made the animals completely unique with different reproduction, etc and therefore, evolutionists can only see this as an evidence for evolution by assuming that God has nothing to do with the process. Don't get me wrong - I think it's a crappy piece of evidence as well, but I think we should reword it so as not to make an assumption ourselves. Does anyone agree that we should revise it? I don't want to make major changes without approval. Shinydarkrai94 18:45, 19 February 2011 (PST)