What is the best argument you heard for creationism.?

Question

Atheist and Evolutionist what was the best argument for creation that you have heard? You can list the worst too but I want to hear what you consider the best arguments from your perspective on creationism as a possibility?

Answer 1

Just the complexity of any living forms DNA is an argument against evolution. How can a complex DNA sequence happen by accident? Take some scrabble pieces and try throwing or dropping them on a table. as the letters turn up you need to create the phrase " To be or not to be that is the question" How long do you think that would take?
Now lets go one step further, someone has to take the blank tiles and flick paint on them to come up with the letters, before you can even use them. Again how long will that take?
That is the crux of evolution. It all happened by accident. Even Darwin himself was concerned how the complexity of the eye could have happened by accident. The only logical conclusion is that there was a Creator.

Answer 2

Difficult question to answer.
I've never heard any compelling arguments for Creationism (mostly because the arguments *for* it are entirely faith-based ... and I don't believe in God).

However - certain anti-evolution arguments have been compelling. For example, the "Irreducible Complexity" arguments are, at first blush, good points. Of course, they too have been shot down in a convincing manner: the so-called irreducible complexity of the eye, for example, is easily shown to be untrue, and the bacteria flagellum has been demonstrated to be an adapted ion channel.

From my personal point of view, the "best" anti-evolution (not pro-Creationism) arguments are the ones that I actually have to think about, and do some research in order to refute (at least to my personal satisfaction). They are the ones that strengthen my understanding of evolution/geology/astrophysics because of what I find out that makes them invalid.

The *worst* arguments are the trite ones:
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
You don't see fish leaving the seas now, do you?
How can carbon-dating tell you the age of rocks as being 4 billion years old; it only works up to 60,000 years?
The ageing of fossils by their depth cannot be true: there are fossil trees that stick through several layers of deposits.

All these arguments are *easily* answerable just be knowing *anything* about the techniques and processes involved. And all they show is that the person making the statement understands nothing about geology, evolution, physics, etc.

Other annoying arguments include the ones that are outright lies ("Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed"; this is false, and also says *nothing* about the truth of evolution) or are based on false statistics ("Many eminent scientists no longer believe in evolution").

Answer 3

The best argument for creationism, that is like asking what office building is most likely to take off, land on the moon and return safely.



The Lord moves in mysterious ways.


Totally meaningless, but arguing against 'logic' like this is like trying to cut (liquid) water into cubes.

There is no way to argue that an omnipotent god could not have created the Earth exactly like in Genesis. He just messed with the starting point and with the development of the Earth and life just to make the universe look 13.7 billion years old and the Earth to look 4.5 billion years old and as if dinosaurs existed and as if we had evolved over millions of years, etc.


And WHY would he do this? Who knows - He moves in mysterious ways. - Don't even bother trying to think about it. Just believe!

Answer 4

The best, if you can call it that, is the First Cause argument. This of course can't denote which particular religion is right, nor the method of creation. It also fails on a number of points, but as Creationist arguments go, it's the best they have.

Answer 5

the problem with creationism is that is doesn't really try to find arguments for it, it tries to disprove evolution. As if evolution were disproven that would automatically make the christian creation true.
I guess "it's written in the bible" and the "world is too complex to understand otherwise" are the only arguments for creationism I recollect. Are there others?

Answer 6

The universe is too complex and perfectly functioning to have happened by chance; it must have had an intelligent cause. THis is not to say the bible should be taken literally. Evolution as a theory has a lot of unanswered questions. Outside intervention by aliens is a theory that has a lot of evidence. But even if aliens exist, who created the aliens? Ultimately you have to have an ultimate cause, whether you call it God or a Universal Life Force.

Answer 7

If the world was created 6000 years ago and it looks like 4 billion years ago then the creationist view should be called the
Divine deception theory.
Creation is a fact the timing of it and date setting is not part of the equation.

Answer 8

nicely yeah. The e book of Genesis. you're able to desire to no longer have self belief it, besides the undeniable fact that it is the argument FOR creationism. people who have self belief in advent have self belief that Genesis is actual and Darwin replaced into incorrect. So human beings disagree, yet the two can cite evidence for their ideals.

Answer 9

That's a difficult question. I've never heard an argument for creationism that was not ridiculous.

Answer 10

Creationism boils down to: "It's too complex! It must be magic!"
If any divine being took part in the creation of the universe, she/he/it/they did it in such a way that deliberately excludes objective evidence. Therefore, she/he/it/they do not want us to know for certain if she/he/it/they were involved, and she/he/it/they want us to figure out the puzzle left for us based on the evidence she/he/it/they left for us, and did not want us to incorporate Bronze Age myths (or any other myths) into that effort. Therefore, the only Creationist argument I could concede is one that (1) admits that any evidence of "creation" is subjective (at best) or non-existant, and (2) assumptions of divine intervention are just that - unproven assumptions.