If natural creation turns out to be scientifically impossible, then how did we get created?

Question

If science could prove natural creation they would. However they cannot, and it is likely that natural creation will be shown to be a false hypothesis. Then what?

“Reason is God’s crowning gift to man.” – Sophocles

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein

Answer 1

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.
Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.
There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.
While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.
Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?
Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."
A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).
A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.
A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:
Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.
...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!
The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

CONSIDER AQUINAS' PROOFS OF GOD's EXISTENCE:
1. Whatever is moved (subsequent mover) is moved by another. (One of Newton's laws of motion) But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other.

2. CAUSE AND EFFECT OR EFFICIENT CAUSE: There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible... Now, to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everone gives the name of God.

3. POSSIBILITY & NECESSITY OR TO BE OR NOT TO BE: ...if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiveing it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God!

4. GRADATION TO BE FOUND IN THINGS: see reference

5. GOVERNANCE OF THINGS: We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end NOT BY CHANCE BUT BY DESIGN. Now whetever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. [NOTE: This means that inanimate objects (earth, wind, fire etc.) in nature are directed by angels] Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.

This is why GOD IS: (spiritual)omnipresent (ever present); (mental)omniscience (all knowing); and (physical)omnipotent (all powerful).

Answer 2

A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”b This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time. b. The Lamp, “The Worlds of Wallace Pratt,” by W. L. Copithorne, Fall 1971, p. 14. Seems it is just a matter of OPINION that the Genesis account is flawed. Edited for the many other answers that make the Bible look stupid. It is sad that so-called Christians can not study the Bible enough to give reasonable answers, instead of quoting the words of clerics that have no faith in the Bible. (1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect. Notice the word "reason" which is the cornerstone of the word "reasonable". If your defense is "parroting" invalid statements by clerics, how are you sanctifying the Christ?

Answer 3

We are, and no supernatural Masters of the Universe are needed to explain that. I much prefer the natural over the supernatural.

Albert Einstein
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
*

Reason is God's greatest gift to man.

A quote from the play Antigone by Sophocles,

In the Antigone contempt of death enables a weak maiden to conquer a powerful ruler, who, proud of his wisdom, ventures in his unbounded insolence to pit his royal word against divine law and human sentiment,
and learns all too late, by the destruction of his house, that Fate in due course brings fit punishment on outrage.

Answer 4

Methinks you've come to preach

Science had almost completely proven 'Natural Creation', and has alot of evidence to back its arguments. I personally trust the scientist more then the mentally ill, or the Religious if you prefer that title

Answer 5

here is my take on the subject, I wrote this in another question so I don't have to retype it.

tell me who created the Creator, and who created him, and so forth, evolution has a better way of explaining it, but still in all it to lacks foundation, "If the big Bang caused it all, Then What blew up?", and it seems like the same answer for to different questions, I personally believe we all exist out of our desire to exist, maybe that desire created a god, who wanted to exist to create us, and maybe the big bang is the result of this desire. Its like in romance movies were a couple runs toward each other on the beach, then all of a sudden bang, they meet up. With this explanation it would explain why this earth has so many cycle that always meet at the same point, it rain to create oceans, oceans are evaporated to create rain, and so forth, and everything only exist out of this desires to exist.

Answer 6

you don't think there is sufficient evidence for evolution? poppycock! go to a museum of natural history and feast your eyes on evidence.

you're writing an essay on religion/evolution? if i may suggest, don't get your "facts" from religious sources, like the above answerer "search4truth" obviously does. stick to well-known university libraries for info (just some friendly advice)
:-)

Answer 7

Science cannot prove this. All scientists can do is present their evidence, and let the people decide. A white lab coat and clipboard are apparently all that are needed to convice the world that you are right.

Answer 8

Gods way of creation is evolution.

Answer 9

Ok got it so what is your question then Mr/ms/mss dr etc know it all if there is something who made it and so on and so on.

Answer 10

How did we get created ? We didn't.