Proof of creationism?

Question

Does anyone have actual, scientific proof for creationism? And dont just say "look around you". That is not proof in any way. There is so much scientific evidence of evolution, I was wondering if there was one shred of evidence for creationism.

Answer 1

It has been argued that the circumstances of total solar eclipses for the earth-moon system are unique in the solar system and that this suggest design. This is reexamined using the latest data on the many satellites now known to exist in the solar system. This argument is shown to be stronger than ever.

Answer 2

Here are some questions and if you can answer them, let me know.
Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing

that should clear some things up. Might wanna re-think your religion. Yes, evolution is a religion.

Answer 3

As a matter of fact, I do!

Below, I have given web-site links that show much of this evidence (fossils, discussions on radio-carbon dating, etc.), but I will mention this. If the evolutionary theory and timetable is true, then men have never seen dinosaurs.

If it can be shown that men co-existed with dinosaurs, then evolution cannot be true.

Dinosaur figures, however, appear in ancient art from all over the world.

These include:
Petroglyphs in Natural Bridges National Park (USA).
Petroglyphs in the Grand Canyon
Petroglyphs in Montrose County, Colorado
Clay figures in Mexico
Drawings on Inca burial stones in Peru
Base relief sculptures in an ancient Cambodian temple.

These show known dinosaurs in great detail! If these are not dinosaurs, what are they? If they are dinosaurs, how did these men know what they looked like?

If they are dinosaurs, and I can't imagine what else they could be, then the people who drew them have either seen dinosaurs, or someone else saw them and told them about them. Either way, people have seen dinosaurs, therefore, the evolutionary timetable is incorrect!

There is much more evidence than this, but this should give you something to investigate!

Answer 4

The various arrangements and combinations of these “letters” in DNA provide all the information needed to instruct a single human fertilized egg to grow, multiply, and shape itself into a fully recognizable baby. Each of the cells in that baby contains a copy of that DNA with all the information to operate the human body for a lifetime. DNA is the most compact information storage system in the world; no computer of human invention can approach the quantity and complexity of information it contains.
DNA even contains the instructions to devise the cellular machinery to decode its instructions. Without a mechanism to decode the information, the DNA blueprint would be useless. Even if DNA had managed to evolve, as Egli believes, the decoding mechanism to read it would have had to evolve at precisely the same time. This scenario is impossible because the instructions for building the decoding unit are contained in the DNA itself.


Indeed, even if the DNA and RNA had come together just so, the remainder of the cellular machinery to interpret the information would have been unavailable until the machinery itself had been built according to the instructions. The problem is a vicious cycle; the only solution lies in the sudden appearance of a fully functional organism with all necessary machinery and information in place, without the necessity of millions of years of trial and error required by molecules-to-man evolution.

Answer 5

No, not really. A small number of vociferous ignoramuses have attempted to "prove" creationism through pseudo science.

One of their major misconceptions is the use of the word "theory." They mistake "theory" in the hypothetical sense with the way scientists use the word. Because they are too ignorant or stupid to understand that difference, they falsely believe they are entitled to have any hypothetical theory , no matter how ridiculous it is.

Scientists use the word theory to describe the best possible explanation of any phenomenon, based on consistent experimental evidence. Scientists use the word “theory” precisely to ensure accurate unbiased understanding.

Creationists use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation
Creationists use the wrong definition of the word “theory” as an excuse to lie.

Scientists know the meaning of the words they use and have strict definitions for any particular sense of the words. Scientists extrapolate reasonable hypotheses based on proven knowledge. Then they construct reasonable questions and experiments to discover if they were right and to find out new information. They use strict controls, mathematics, logic, sensitive measuring instruments and adhere to proven scientific methods. Their purpose is to advance the knowledge of humankind for the good of humankind. Their results are published and reviewed by other open minded , intelligent, trained, educated scientists. Only after many other trained scientists have verified experimental results and concur with the findings do they ever publish a “theory.”

Creationists use the wrong definition of the word theory as an excuse to lie. Creationists begin with a ridiculous notion, who’s only purpose is to support another ridiculous notion. Then they work backwards from their desired result through a series of bogus arguments, not bonified scientific experiments. They use no instruments other than blunt force lies. They have no controls, use fuzzy math if any, and do not adhere to any scientific protocol. They publish their unproven (and un provable) notions, not in peer reviewed scientific journals, but in religious newsletters and pro-Christian Op-eds.. They do not wait to see what ANY scientist thinks before they proclaim they have found the new theory. To the extent that their findings are reviewed at all, those reviewers are close-minded, stupid, untrained and uneducated.

Scientific theory is; “The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work..”

Scientific proof; based on valid experiments with consistent repeatable results.
Creationist “proof”; based on arguments with absolutely no evidence.

Scientists; trained, open-minded, logical, educated, honest.
Creationists; brainwashed, close-minded, illogical, uneducated, liars.

Scientists; provide real useful knowledge that benefits all humankind.
Creationists; manufacture propaganda that benefits only their personal agendas.

It is delightfully obvious how stupid and wrong creationism and its proponents are. They bark like show dogs at the slightest whisper of truth, and sleep like babies when their pet notions, like lullabies, lull them into hypnotic stupor.

It is also curious how little creationists give to the world. They seem to think we already have everything taken care of my some invisible super guy in the sky. They don’t try to find cures for disease, feed the hungry, provide energy, communication or knowledge.
They think all the knowledge necessary for living is in an anecdotal story book about a misunderstood Jew who lived two thousand years ago.

Creationists also drive cars, use electricity, make phone calls, watch TV, get treatment from doctors, and use computers on the internet. So why is it that they don’t believe science when science obviously gives them everything they need? Because they are brainwashed or mentally retarded, that’s all.

Here are the telling final comparisons;

EVERY scientist knows that evolution is a fact. They may disagree on minor details, but they are ALL certain evolution is scientifically true.

NO REAL SCIENTIST believes in creationism.

ONLY a very small portion of zealous fundamentalist Christians imagine that some mythological being made everything in six days six thousand years ago. Mostly, that small group is in the bible belt of the united states, no where else in the world.

Even most Christians do not believe in creationism or “intelligent design.” (the new euphemism for ‘creationism.”)

Evolution is real. Understanding it is exceedingly useful.

Except for lulling psychotic lunatics to sleep, creationism is useless.

Creationism is bovine excrement.

Answer 6

Right. There is no emperical proof of creationism.

There is a lot of proof of evolution, though.

That's why creationists first step is always to try to discredit scientists. They love portraying them as all anemic, atheist, radical liberals. Of course this is just a feeble attempt by the radical fundamenatlists to discredit facts that threaten their hateful little empires.

Most of the scientists I know not only are pretty conservative but are also very wise and spiritual, so I'll take their word for things quicker than some fundamentalist who never read anything but the bible and the funny pages.

Answer 7

The Bible was the first and only Scriptures to teach the scientific method before science ever existed.

The Bible taught a Big Bang creation thousands of years before science ever existed.

Here's a book that does a good explanation of Creation:
http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Days-Resolving-Creation-Controversy/dp/1576833755

Also www.reasons.org is a ministry of scientists and Ph D professionals that are commited to science and the Bible

Another good resource is the DVD called "The Priviledged Planet." found here:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0495399/

It is available at Netflix, also

Answer 8

Do you call the "Big Bang Theory" scientific evidence? How can something just decide to blow up and create the universe on its own? God had to have created the universe there's no other reasonable explanation.

Answer 9

The proof is in the Old Testament man! What better proof do you want than the word of God?

Answer 10

Yes. There is proof of creation. its the existence of creationists. Evolution could not have created such dumdasses!

Answer 11

This the short version:

There is a universal tendency for all systems of matter/energy to run down. Available energy is dissipated and order is lost. Without either a programmed mechanism or intelligent action, even open systems will tend from order to disorder, from information to non-information, and towards less availability of energy. This is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold, and why the sun’s energy will not make a dead stick grow (as opposed to a green plant, which contains specific, pre-programmed machinery to direct the energy to create a special type of order known as specified complexity).

Observed changes in living things head in the wrong direction to support evolution from protozoan to man (macro-evolution).
Selection from the genetic information already present in a population (for example, DDT resistance in mosquitoes) causes a net loss of genetic information in that population. A DDT-resistant mosquito is adapted to an environment where DDT is present, but the population has lost genes present in the mosquitoes that were not resistant to DDT because they died and so did not pass on their genes. So natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information.

At the molecular level, the organization that characterizes living things is inherently different from, for example, a crystal arrangement. The function of a given protein, for instance, depends upon the assembly sequence of its constituents. The coded information required to generate these sequences is not intrinsic to the chemistry of the components (as it is for the structure of a crystal) but extrinsic (imposed from outside).
During reproduction, the information required to make a living organism is impressed upon material substrates to give a pre-programmed pattern, by systems of equal (or greater) complexity (in the parent organism/s) which themselves had the same requirement for their formation. Without pre-programmed machinery, no spontaneous, physico-chemical process is known to generate such information-bearing sequences—this requires the operation of outside intelligence.