If creation is so true then why can't anyone provide real scientific evidence in favor of it?

Question

I have not once seen any evidence or argument for creation that has not been falsified by logic or the scientific method.

If there is no evidence for the hypothesis that is no reason to exclude it from inquiry. However if there is evidence against it, then it's safe to say it's an invalid hypothesis. There is, in fact, literally tons of evidence that runs contrary to the hypothesis of creation. Therefore we can conclude with fair certainty that creationism is false and the only reasons it continues to survive is because people want to believe it's true, or are ignorant to the facts and therefore can't conceive of a viable option.

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

There is no evidence because it is complete fiction.

Answer 2

The "hypothesis of creation" as you put it is not well-formulated. That there could have existed an omnipotent being that created the universe prior to its existence cannot be validated or invalidated by scientific inquiry which, by its nature, can only investigate the universe's mechanisms not its origin.

Through scientific inquiry it is possible to reject certain "creationist" hypotheses such as one that holds that humans were created in their current form 6,000 years ago. However, even the rejection of *all* such hypotheses does not invalidate the hypothesis that such a being exists and created the universe through a process distinct from those tested and rejected.

Furthermore, the existence of a divine being, by most accounts, is an untestable hypothesis due to the fact that most conceptions of such a being impose it with such qualities as omnipotence which are by their nature supernatural. Since science deals with only the natural universe it cannot validate or invalidate such propositions.

It is my strongly held belief that scientific inquiry should stick to its boundaries and that religion should stick to its own. In other words, scientific inquiry *cannot* provide evidence for or against supernatural phenomena including the existence of a "God" and its proponents should not attempt to do so. Similarly, religion does not follow an acceptable scientific methodology and as such should not attempt to explain the natural world in a scientific manner.

In the modern world we live in an era of quandaries that lie at the intersection of science and religion. Science allows us certain possibilities - through technology and other advancement. Religion provides us with moral guidance, or at least the philosophy of religion does. As we deal with these issues in our day, it's unsurprising that our society will be confused in attempting to resolve tradition and morals with the possibility of advancement. I think we should be careful we know what the boundaries of each are and stick to them.

Answer 3

The problems with evidence is whom gets to define it.

Is evidence the word of another, if not, why is it used in courts?

Is evidence corroborating witnessess statements whom have had the same Spiritual experiences, if not , why not as this is also used in court?

Within the world of Spiritual reality there are many twist on "creation" as you state.

Sprituality is alot like Jesus, he could care less whom believs in him as he is there, despite what anyone might think or wish.

Jesus will be the first to laugh and say, hey, I'm not the holy roller you think, wanna go bowl?

I hear what you say, I advise to seek Truth yourself as this was Jesus message; Jesus did not come to "save" but to teach Truth in yourself.

Jesus is not and never was about condemnation, hell is not Physical but a state of creation People manage to creat whatever they wished and always have.

Have you noticed the fights over religion? The wars? And maybe you ask why so?

The self denial is about mans inability to see themselves as they truely are, Naked. Nothing is hidden from Truth. Eventually everything comes out in the light.

Scientist are without a doubt the most Spritualy Void subjects around; if you Consider that Reality is Spritual (non-physical energy) you may see that gadgets and instruments are not yet capable of "getting it" or Validating such Spiritual "data"; Albert Einstein most probably did not meditate, I don't, but Albert did the math and saw a little something in reality; Albert was a great scientist but one cannot expect a farmer to make a nuclear reactor as Albert was no more ready Spiritualy to find that truth in Self than most are.

I'm not suprised that "evidence" will never be found by scientist as they, like most, look Out and not In.

Answer 4

I cannot believe that this so called creationists can continue with their lies. My father was a minister , methodist, and there was no probs in the church. Then the creationists arrived. All hell broke loose and my father was forced to be removed as minister. He believed there was a place for both creation and evolution - he respected both views. So - my family were tossed out of the parish and had to create a new life for ourselves after much heartache. Creationism is a lie and it divides people. Its not a case of one or the other. Its a case of respect. RESPECT PEOPLE

Answer 5

Well don't we just think we are intelligent. And setting the stage for all those who disagree with you to be ignorant.

Science only explains what the Lord created and put in place. Science looking to prove creation and not evolution is abundant. Do your research like Charles Darwin did and see his thoughts on the probability of evolution in relation to the human eye and it's complexity.

It is not logical for a single cell to reproduce itself and decide to be something other than it already is. Then the great big jump in your hypothesis is that these cells then came to understand in the brain they created that they would have sex to keep reproducing.

Answer 6

Gee, I haven't seen a single piece of evidence against creation. Seems to me there wouldn't be any debate about creationism versus evolution if one side or the other had any real solid proof. Don't you think.

I believe that God uses evolution as one of his tools. He allows species to change in response to stimuli and changes in environment. I mean it is a reasonable thing to do. However, I have no doubt that he is the author of creation and that there would be zero proof that he created things. Were you expecting that people who believe in creation would be able to show some fingerprints that were left behind or something? Suppose you had a pile of china and pottery laying around that was perfectly made and had no signature or stamp on them. You could assume that they were just an accident of nature or you could assume that someone made them. You might not have proof of either, but it would be much more likely that someone created them instead of believing they kind of just spontaneously evolved from raw clay.

Answer 7

Creationism cannot be proven. On the other hand, you say there's tons of evidence against creation. There's not. Can you give a single example of how logic or science refutes creationism? Just a little one?

Answer 8

It depends on what you mean by "creation". Properly understood, creation refers to the appeareance of the physical universe, including time and space, where nothing existed previously. Science has no explanation for this event, and cannot since it was a spiritual, not a natural event, and spiritual realities lie outside the purview of science. On the other hand, if by "creation" you mean that God specially created every individual species, constantly eradicating various life forms and creating other similar forms "from scratch" to replace them, we know this is totally bogus from the plain facts revealed by science.

Answer 9

I would post an answer on here in defense to Creationism, but it would take too many characters and most likely you wouldnt read it. but i can give you books that explain it all. it is where i found my information.

book #1 The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel

book #2 I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Frank Turek

Answer 10

I can't prove some one built a house, but I most definately can't prove that no one built it. So whats the point of trying to?

How is there evidence against creationism, when it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist?

Answer 11

I would rather believe in creation than in a theory that changes every time they find something that does not fit the pattern they were hoping for. God and creation is based on faith and faith does not fit in a test tube.