Creationists, make your case.?

Question

Rather than trying to throw weak arguments at evolution trying to disprove it, I would like to hear a logical argument from creationists as to why the theory of Creation is correct.

This is not a question which you throw antiquated or specious arguments at evolution. This an opportunity to explain to an agnostic WHY creationism is the only logical choice.

Note: Stating "Because the bible said so", or "because god made it so", or quoting bible passages and taking them as proof is NOT a logical argument.

Fozziebear: You scare me. Not logical, doesn't help debate. See answer from Creatrix.

Kutekymee: I've noticed that aswell :)

Antihero: Very good point

Get a grip: Doesn't prove creationism, it tries to disprove evolution

Melbright: I entirely agree.

Peacetime: The only real argument I've read so far. I find it interesting though, because to make scientific sense it has to be verifiable... Also, you state we cannot arise on our own. So where did "the mind" come from? Either way something had to come from nothing.

Mr. Penguin: Alien child's science experiment anyone? :)

Robby216: Not and argument. Not logical. Doesn't help debate.

Havn a hard time: So just because we don't understand something, it must have been created? That is arrogant of us don't you think?
I would highly recommend you do some research into in-breeding. Look at the royal families of europe during the victorian era. So why don't you ask some questions?

JC: Not an arugment. Take it somewhere else

under_mc...: I entirely agree, let the evidence speak. But it seems there is only real evidence for one side right now...

Eri: 5 stars, go to th head of the class!

Skiingst...: See comment for Get a Grip

Creatrix: Technically not related to question, but an excellent rebuttal :)

God bless: Not an argument. Take it somewhere else.

Jeanmari..: Check your research again. Pasteur disproved abiogenesis as well as proving germ theory. Look up Francesco Redi, 1668.
Also, production of amino acids has been shown. Amino acids makes proteins, proteins makes cells. I have personally made proteins from amino acids. You think it's more logical to assume that everything came from a omnipotent being than amino acids formed a protein and then a cell?

Suspendo: Good argument, but falls apart at the beginning. I suggest you research the Big Bang theory.

Muhammad: You make some interesting arguments.
1) Why are there so many versions then? Historians have shown the bible varying over time, and the "scientific facts" you mention... Why is it they only get interpreted as such when science finds the answer?
2)Old argument. Specious reasoning.
3)Not an argument. See 'Note' above
4) See Francesco Redi, 1668.

Tim: Did Noah just forget to take 2 mammoths on the ark then? Every other species he took seems to have done fine...

Q&A Queen: That is a good point queen. It is true that science does not yet have an adequate answer to that. But the then question becomes where did the creator come from? Either way, something appeared from nothing...

Answer 1

Why do you care?

Why are people without faith so afraid of those that have it? I understand people of faith needing to defend their position - without their faith, they have nothing.

However, if you really are so logical, why do you care whether or not others believe in your science? How does it harm you to have people believe in a God and creationism?

.

Answer 2

The problem isn't whether or not creationism is right. Some evangelicals have taken creationist argument and tried to turn them into a sermon which detracts from the real message creationists are trying to make. The point they are trying to make is that there are viable alternative theories to evolution. Evolution is taught as known fact, but there are problems with the theory. Most respectable evolutionists will readily admit these problems and argue that they just haven't found the evidence yet to fill the voids. The have faith that this evidence exists. An evolutionist has faith that the evidence will come to solve the problems with the theory. A creationist has faith that another viable theory exists. My response is to continue gathering data/evidence and let the evidence decide who's right.

eri: Your logic is incorrect. Unless you personally know all of the evolutionary biologists with opinions on this matter, you can not truthfully say what all of them will an won't admit. This is known as "hasty generalization" and is a flaw in true logic. As for my comment, it was based on the fact that I have read articles written by those very evolutionary biologists you speak of stating that evolution, as a theory unto itself, is flawed. They state that they are merely waiting for the correct scientific theory to replace it or they state that the flawed theory "will have to do" because they reject all other alternatives. Those are not my words; those are their words. Seeing as how you were incorrect here, I must then assume you are incorrect in everything else you said. (This, too would be a logic flaw, known as Argumenutum ad Hominem)

S1LK - Anymore requests for logical argument? It won't do any good until both sides of the argument stop falling into the traps of Argumentum ad Populem and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Answer 3

Logic and common sense.....

It makes no sense to me that the perfect order in the universe came about by chance, without benefit of intelligence. Now I've read a couple of things for instance about the big bang theory. My original argument was to ask when the last time an explosion (BANG) ever created anything. So I'm reading in some science journal and an explanation says that that's not really true... that it's really an expansion of what existed at the time of the "event." However they still can't explain where the original "singularity" that expanded came from. They don't have any idea. Their words.

"Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. "

There so much more than would be inexplicable to me without belief in a creator.

BTW it's interesting that the article I cited below calls the wonderful animal life on this planet "CREATURES". Creatures? From scientists?

====

S1lk:

(a) Yup. I understand what you're saying, but personally I'd rather give up on trying to wrap my head around how my creator got here and simply be grateful that He is than believe in an accident. No creator, IMHO, no hope. We're on our own and we clearly can't get the job done.

(b) I should tell you I applaud the way you've handled this thread. It's proof that both sides can engage in interesting dialogue without the insults and jabs that both sides often engage in. Good job.

Answer 4

After studying science including evolution I had a hard time with life coming from non life. Darwin doesn't really address this. I can't think of the guys name that started with warm soup theory but he has recently recanted it. He even had text books. I wonder if he gave the money back to the universities?!

It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter. During the Middle Ages, some people thought non-living matter often gave birth to living things (spontaneous generation). Worms, insects, mice, and other creatures were thought to be created by materials in their environment.

spontaneous generation: the idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances. It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence.
Darwin and hit crew did not have DNA to understand the origins of life. Matter from non matter is just silly and defies natural laws.
Materialists assume life arose spontaneously somewhere in ancient Earth's water supply water which contained absolutely no life, just minerals and chemical substances used by living things.

Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, materialists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen. They also assumed it contained certain necessary ingredients, including ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor and methane. However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life. Therefore, materialists theorized something else must be needed perhaps a bolt of energy.
What was the result? No life was produced, of course, but the electricity did combine some atoms to form amino acids. They said this was the beginning of life which seems to prove creation-lol
†

Answer 5

Well, Darwinist. Here's why: Everything in the holy book(s), Koran, The Bible, Torah, seem to correspond with Nature and everything in it. Can not the Universe be Created and Evoluted, as opposed to an either/or situation? And if you say that these holy books are written by humans, think again: renaissance is a long way AFTER these books are produce, and their scientific evidences are too staggeringly accurate to be words of Man.

Second, we cannot seem to find LIVING proto-humans or half-apes or ANYTHING of the sort. Before going into the 'apes are our ancestors/have a similar genetic makeup' argument, none of these animals have reasoning. Whatever you try to prove that the chimps can read, write or make a phone call for goodness' sake, they do it because they are only copycatting us. They do NOT know good from bad. And if you are a hardcore evolutionaire, why can't we see a derivatie of the crocodiles/alligators/cymans/gavials? They all look the same to me. None with gills, none with vegetarian tendencies or any evolutionary qualities, yet they are proven by scientists to originate from some millions of years ago! Same can be said of cockroaches. Maybe they've gone down in size, and some could fly and emit horrible odours, but none seem to be cross-bred with, lets say, mosquitoes or beetles. No (or not evident) evolution there.

Well, we creationists can be people of religion and science. Have faith. It's ok to be atheistic scientists, but you have got to have something to explain the UNEXPLAINABLE. For instance, scientists have concluded that we cannot go back in time, and physics proved that! In the Koran, there is a phrase that said 'do not regret, repent, for time cannot be turned'. Some illnesses cannot be treated, and scientists are baffled. Yet with fervent prayer and hope, some are cured. (don't get started with the placebo effect with me).

Fourth, before Darwin came up with the theory, he kinda asked why did insects came out of a stale sandwich. Then he hypothesised that the sandwich EVOLVED to the insects. Self-explanatory. His living in Madagascar didn't help either. He draws up the gibbons or whatever, and concludes that they look like humans. Well, so much for scientific theorems THERE.

Well, the debate is kinda prolonged and useless anyways. Why don't we all get along and devote our brilliant minds and energies to know more, not to disprove or humiliate or make others discredited. Agree to disagree? Anytime.

Answer 6

Well, I for one find the thought of us having a creator is much more logical than -millions of years of an organism forming and then a fish walking, so on. I find it very hard to BELIEVE that our earth just formed from many dif. planets & stars or a huge explosion created life rather then destoy it. The fact of the matter is both creation and evolution require faith. You did not witness these changes happening yourself, you are just told and given hypothisis answers of how. There is no way to prove or deny God, some people cannot except that. It is simply a matter of what will you put your FAITH in. A man who went to an island (Galapogos) and saw how different things were there and came up with his own explaination of "Where did we come from" or your Father, Creator, & Redemor. This choice is yours and everyone else's. Which ever decision you make your Father will still love you and I guess we won't know the rest of the story till the end of time!

Answer 7

the bible for a start doesn't say evolution wasn't part of the process. god made the sea animals first then the land animals, then man. he just states he made man out of clay- which could mean soil, where all life on earth probably came from. he just didn't go into specifics. it says he did it in seven days, but the bible says also that one day to god is like 1000 years and 1000 years to god is like one day. so time is different in gods reality to what it is here with us. and was stated by his point of view and not our own. but saying all this the question i have for you is that if we come from monkeys, why isn't there monkeys today making the evolutionary jump. being that there would be closer resembled apes, instead of ones that are such a large jump in the chain away. besides the person that wrote this theory actually became a christian.-why?

Answer 8

Lets take the Woolly Mammoth as an example.

Evolution says they died out in the last ice age.
But why did they die?
Was it just a shortage of food?
Why did the Mammoths in warmer climates also die?
How come Mammoths have (tropical) seed pods in their stomachs?


The Bible says that there was a world wide flood.
This would kill the Mammoths all over the world.
At the time of the flood there was an ice shield over our atmosphere. This ice would have been about -300F. Ice at that temperature has a magnetic property. It collapsed and gathered around the earth's magnetic poles (That is why the ice age was not centered on the geologic north pole).
At -300F it froze the Mammoths so fast that the food in their stomach did not have time to digest (evan at -100F the food would have digest and some of their internal organs would have started to rot).

Answer 9

Hi,
It would take quit a few pages to make a strong scientific case, so to avoid a bunch of typing here, I'll just recommend a web site for everyone here to surf to. One is Johnankerberg.net. There are many many more, but this is just one. This site will help dispel a few of the theories presented by the evolution debate. and of course it's Christian in nature, so don't let that throw you. If you really want to understand what is taking place on good old planet Earth you'll need to look at all you options. And this is good science. I think you guys are all looking for a silver bullet to put everything to rest, but it still all come done to faith even in the science.

Answer 10

Well, there you go. The only attempts at answers you got were 'it looks designed and everything works' (of course it works - if it didn't, we wouldn't be alive) and 'evolution would have taken too long' (ignoring the point of the question, which was to provide evidence for creation, and not including their calculations, which I find highly suspect). There is no evidence for creation - just a bunch of people saying 'I don't understand evolution, so it must be wrong, let's use my pet theory instead'.

No evolutionary biologist will tell you that evolution itself, as a theory, has problems. Sure, there are a few things we don't understand, there always will be, but evolution itself is solid. There are NO viable scientific theories as alternatives to evolution - no other theory within the realm of science has been suggested that could explain anywhere near as much as evolution does.

In order to replace evolution, you need to find something that works BETTER than it does. And creationism does NOTHING for us. It makes no predictions, leads to no conclusions, gives us no insight.

Answer 11

Well,if you would read the Bible you would realize that many of the prophesies have come or are coming true before our very eyes.Read Revelation.Not just that many lucky guesses.If you would research it all out WITH A TRULY OPEN MIND you would find Creation of much more logic.Oh and what about the dinosaurs?Let me just say "The Great flood.Humans and dinosaurs were around at the same time.Otherwise how could they have been described by a man in the book of Job?I'm not gonna try to force anyone to believe.Just stating the facts.