2007-02-08 12:50:48 · 9 answers · asked by cajusntrike 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
On the chance you are being serious, and are confused by the loads of nonsense that professional creationist throw at you...here is my answer.
There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Up till the late 18th/early 19th century creationism was considered the best explanation but with the beginnings of the scientific revolution evidence was needed to support the claims. (Young earth, the flood, the recent creation of life...) Naturalist began to explore and study the world around them, and the claims of creationism one by one fell apart. It was realized by the early 19th century that the earth was much older than previously thought. By the early 20th century it was known to be in the billions of years old.
The idea of the flood was brought down also in the early 19th and so too the idea of recent creation of life. Darwin put an end to the idea that living things were static, or unchanging.
Since then there has been a resurgence of creationism, especially in the US and since Whitcomb and Morris wrote "The Genesis Flood'. However, no matter how many people support creationism (Polls in the US put that number over 40%) it does not affect science at all. As far as science goes, no creationist has proposed anything reasonable since Louis Agassiz died in the 1873. And Agassiz was given leeway for being an old, respectable scientist who just never accepted the new information. When he died, the last of the respectable creationist died with him.
In short, now, all we have are the liars and the con-men.
Funny how many great and powerful claims they make in speeches and in books...but when called to testify or to support their clams they either don't show up or look like a fool.
(See Behe in the Dover trial for the later. Dembski for the former)
2007-02-08 18:00:29 · answer #1 · answered by RjKardo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
From a scientific view, the best "evidence" might not be the best way to phrase this question - since there is none - but the best "reason" for creationism is the total lack of any verifiable scientific explanation or theory as to where the building blocks of the universe as well as life came from in the first place.
2007-02-08 13:03:43 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid there isn't any. Creationism is a non-scientific 'hypothesis' based on blind faith and personal belief. The only way to believe in creationism is to ignore the evidence.
2007-02-08 17:36:10 · answer #3 · answered by jowpers 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is the best evidence for creationism. The modern car has evolved into an advance vehicle. Life has evolved into a more advanced state. The difference is that the tools for the advancement of life was built in at the start while the car has to rely on outside interference.
2007-02-08 13:25:41 · answer #4 · answered by Willem V 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The best evidence for creationism is that still small voice that tells you there is a God. Everyone has heard the voice from time to time, at the death of a loved one, the birth of a new born, when there was an accident and you were OK, and the list goes on. Many have tried to hide the voice or tell others that they have never heard it but it's there. That to me is the best evidence.
2007-02-08 12:58:42 · answer #5 · answered by sirwilliam1st 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
no longer one unmarried merchandise and it rather is a definite guess they by no potential will the kent hovind that pushed it lots is in penitentiary for mendacity so what does that inform you and maximum creationist get rather mad whilst it rather is talked approximately or the declare they don't be attentive to the guy it would be like no longer understanding relating to the introduction museum in kentucky the farce of individuals being stupid adequate to choose to pay to work out those lies. i assume that is purely too no longer worry-free to apply certainty reality and good judgment for some human beings
2016-11-02 22:46:10 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a section of Yahoo! Answers that is dedicated to biology questions and questions pertaining to biological principles. Your question address neither biology nor biological principles. Please refer your question to "Religion and Philosophy", as that is where it belongs.
2007-02-08 12:56:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i belive theyre evidence is " were here now arent we?'
its not that good i know
w
2007-02-08 13:04:21 · answer #8 · answered by wesnaw1 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
WRONG SECTION!!! this has absolutely nothing to do with biology!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-02-08 13:30:31 · answer #9 · answered by melanie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋