Evolution vs. Creation; give me a scientific arugument in Creations favor?

Question

Someone give me a good debate for creation, it has to be logically based, no faith crap, or aruguments that can't be backed up by facts. No assumuptions just cold hard facts. Please, only good arugements no crap please.

Answer 1

WHY?
These questions on creation and evolution are getting so tiresome!
Why do you want to hear an arguement and anyway I am sure you have your own views which nobody is going to change.
Sorry, but if you want to hear some answers why don't you go and look at the ones given to the last 10 people who have already asked this question today?

Answer 2

The Creationist view can be summed up by 3 points.

1. A BEGINNING- Do a search for "red shift." This is the expansion of the universe caused by matter spreading out from a central point in the universe upon creation.

2. A CAUSE- The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

3. A DESIGNER- Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

Answer 3

Yes, but you have to include the word assumption.
Because I think it is foolish of man to think he is SO wise when it comes to science. We think we know all that there is as fact?

If someone asked me how I know a color is red, I could explain that it has a certain light frequency. But where did THAT come from? Science is really a bunch of assumptions proved by other assumptions. Sure, you can throw facts up there all you want, but humans define their own world.

It's not like we've EVER had corroborating evidence from alien life that "gee, we got science principals right".

So how can I give you scientific facts which are based on assumption to 'prove' Creation. I can say this. Something cannot come of nothing. You cannot create gold from the air, or start a species by just thinking about it. Too many coincidences and events brought about the world today for one to not believe in Creation by God Himself.

Answer 4

I believe in creation but I am not a creationist. I do not believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days but instead the word day used in Genesis refers to periods of time covering different steps of the creation process.

True science - based on proven, verifiable facts - supports creation down to the finest detail. The very structure of the smallest human cell right up to the organisation of the universe give testimony to a creator.

The fossil record actually shows that life began suddenly and not gradually

The laws of physics prove intelligent design.

There is too much evidence to put in here to prove a creator. Even to discus one item with references will take to much space.

Evolution is STILL an unproven theory that can not be agreed on.

Evolution is NOT based on fact but conjecture of what is thought to have happened.

Answer 5

No faith crap? For what evolution or creation?

The geologic record is inconveniently strange. They used to think that simple life arose during the Cambrian age. Now, there seem to be an abundance of fossil evidence that dates before the Cambrian base and show an explosive mass of diversity and biological sophistication. How can this be? The process of producing DNA programming for the diversity of traits has long been assumed to be long and slow, so how did all that intricate programming so accidentally happen? Besides the phenomenal oddities as metamorphosing bugs from worm-type larvae into moths and butterflies, all pre-programmed into the DNA, there are behaviors programmed there too. How do you go from worms to clams? Sure we have a table or tree of common characteristics that indicate a progression. But even the basic biological jumps, without evidence of intermediaries is incredibly strange. To stick to the accidental arising of living organisms in light of the intricate biochemical program matrix inside every cell of every organism takes far, far more faith than it takes for me to believe that a grand designer orchestrated it all.

Answer 6

Just curious, are you considering converting to Christianity, IF you aren't a believer or are you just looking for conflict? The reason I ask, is if you aren't interested in creationism for a sincere reason (which I doubt due to the "faith crap" remark) why do you ask? Is it in any way infringing on your way of life, your quality of life, your personal ideology or beliefs because I believe in Creation over evolution? I don't see how it could be. My "best argument" is what you call crap. So why should I waste time telling you what I believe and why I believe it if you are only looking for holes in my argument to condemn my beliefs. I hope you find what you are looking for.........

Answer 7

God created the Earth. He just didn't do it on Sunday October 23rd, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM like the Creationists believe. He created it a few billion years ago when the universe exploded into existence. Then at least one chunk of rock was situated the right distance from a mixture of hot gases called the sun and it was able to sustain life on it's surface.

Faith is what you depend on when you have no scientific explanation for something. It isn't supposed to and shouldn't interfere with science.

Answer 8

? “We win,” says Richard Bliss of Creation Research Institute, “because the scientific data for the Creation model is far better than the evolution model. They regress toward the religious; we stick to the science.” They have faith in fossils never found, whereas the creationists stick to the known facts of genetics.

? John Whitehead, a professor of anthropology at Ball State University in Indiana, defends evolution by a bit of unscientific characterization: “People, and especially undergraduate students, are willing to accept just about any crackpot scheme these days.”

? The vast majority of people, including undergraduates, are accepting evolution.

*** ct chap. 2 How Did Our Universe Get Here?—The Controversy ***

Four Fundamental Physical Forces

1. Gravity—a very weak force on the level of atoms. It affects large objects—planets, stars, galaxies.

2. Electromagnetism—the key attracting force between protons and electrons, allowing molecules to form. Lightning is one evidence of its power.

3. Strong nuclear force—the force that glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.

4. Weak nuclear force—the force that governs the decay of radioactive elements and the efficient thermonuclear activity of the sun.

[Box on page 20]

“Combination of Coincidences”

“Make the weak force slightly stronger and no helium would have been produced; make it slightly weaker and nearly all the hydrogen would have been converted into helium.”

“The window of opportunity for a universe in which there is some helium and there are also exploding supernovas is very narrow. Our existence depends on this combination of coincidences, and on the even more dramatic coincidence of nuclear energy levels predicted by [astronomer Fred] Hoyle. Unlike all previous generations, we know how we come to be here. But, like all previous generations, we still do not know why.”—New Scientist.

[Box on page 22]

“The special conditions on earth resulting from its ideal size, element composition, and nearly circular orbit at a perfect distance from a long-lived star, the sun, made possible the accumulation of water on the earth’s surface.” (Integrated Principles of Zoology, 7th edition) Life on earth could not have appeared without water.

[Box on page 24]

Believe Only What You See?

Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.

“So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs the motion of the parent stars.” Yes, for the astronomers, the visible effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of unseen heavenly bodies.

Related evidence—not direct observation—was an adequate basis for scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.

[Box on page 25]

Sir Fred Hoyle explains in The Nature of the Universe: “To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be. . . . Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements . . . How comes it then that the Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.”

Answer 9

Also boopie, add to there that they can't prove Creationism by saying that evolution is incomplete. The theory of gravity has quantum physics problems, that doesn't mean god pulls things to the ground.

Answer 10

You should have mentioned that finding faults with evolution does not constitute evidence for creationism.