Please give me a positive evidence for Creationism?

Question

Most, if not all evidences for Creationism are really anti-Evolution evidences, with Creationism cited as the only other possible alternative (the false dichotomy). I'd like to know a piece of evidence that is not anti-Evolution, but distinctly pro-Creationism. Something Creationism/the Bible predicts we should find that should not be based upon other scientific theories or other explanations.

Please, let your answers be as testable, parsimonious, empirical, consistent, and falsifiable as possible. Thanks.

@ Rev Einstein: Belief in a Creator is not inconsistent with evolution. I was asking for a positive evidence for Creationism, not "scientist X believes in Creation, therefore it's true".

@ rhio6: A thought is not inconsistent with evolution. The ability to dream and imagine what is not yet true can be an evolutionary advantage. Also, thoughts do not come from nowhere. My brain creates and interprets them.

@ Millie C: Closest yet. Where is the evidence the Earth was once a void and waters covered the entire planet?

@ Wugga: Big Bang is an aspect of cosmology, not biology. Second of all, your argument was exactly what I specified I did not want. "The Big Bang theory is incomplete, therefore Creationism"

@ Jenx: Belief in Creation is not inconsistent with agreement with evolution. I believe in Creation and agree with evolution. A beautiful and miraculous world is subjunctive. I see a lot of ugliness in this world. Does that mean God does not exist? No.

@ Andy H: Two hundred years ago, powered flight was not recorded. That did not mean it was impossible, it just meant it had not been recorded yet. Same with abiogenesis. Second of all, evolution stands without abiogenesis.

@ Styme the Brave: Well done sir. Please, please PLEASE post that as a question. I'd love to give you answers to it (I came up with a dozen off the top of my head).

@ Silfoam Tech: There are over 800 *breeds* of dogs, not species. All dogs are of the same subspecies of Canis Lupus. Second of all, evolution does not require a beetle to produce a non-beetle, or a dog to produce a non-dog. Thirdly, mutations do produce new species because speciation has been observed.

@ D-Rock: Life has always been the same as today? Then explain the transitional forms between invertebrates and vertebrates, fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals, land mammals to whales, all showing transitions of both form and function, please.

Second of all, there is no evidence for a global flood. Indeed, there are many pieces of evidence that should not be there if there was one, such as:
1) The ratio of ocean sediment to land sediment
2) The complete lack of evidence for genetic bottlenecks (caused by 99% of all life being destroyed by the flood)
3) The amount of water required has been estimated at 3 to 8 times the amount on this planet.

@ Thomas A: Kent Hovind does not understand evolution. To him, evolution = atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity. No joke he rails against evolution when one believes evolution is an attack on one's faith. I've read Hovind's materials and found the exact things I don't want, i.e. "X scientists disagree with evolution, therefore it's false," or "structure X is problem for evolution, therefore Creationism."

@ Questioner: I am more than willing to accept Creationism. However, every argument I've ever seen for Creationism is an anti-evolution argument, with Creationism supplied as the only alternative. My request to see positive evidence for Creationism is my attempt at being convinced for Creationism.

Second of all, beauty works for evolution too. Sexual selection is the passing on of genes because the opposite sex finds you attractive. Beauty would then be an evolutionary advantageous trait. Beauty is also very subjective. What is beautiful to me isn't always beautiful to you.

Answer 1

Creationism, or its cousin ID are not positive sciences. They have never set out to prove much of anything other than that evolution is a lie.
If they were trying to create an actual theory, they would be searching for proof of what supposedly did the "designing". That, would be science..... That would constitute a serious effort to form a hypothesis and have it tested rigorously to become a theory.
Instead, they look for supposed "gaps in evolutionary theory" (a misnomer coincidentally; the fossil record does contain gaps, evolutionary theory does not) and then, in lieu of even looking for anything in the natural world to fill those "gaps", simply say: 'Evolution doesn't work here, so something must have designed the whole thing'...

The truly important thing to realize here is that we are dealing with faith and ideology. People will believe the pseudo-scientific banter put out by Behe and the Discovery Institute because they WANT to believe it. Nothing so trivial as facts and evidence will be able to sway their view on this.

Answer 2

Well, the Old Testament was written by Moses and Moses was many things but not a scientist. So he tells the story given to him by God and says
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[a] 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." So then he said
"9 Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And that is what happened. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
Next thing we know
"7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.
Now if the land was covered in water and God had to recede the waters to bring forth dry land then it stands to reason the soil from which God created man would be very moist, Man is 70%-80% water. In addition man really does become the soil of the ground. The only thing that leaves us is the breath he breathed into us. The rest goes back to what we were from the beginning.

Answer 3

The internet is a source for creation material. Kent Hovind has compiled many hours of recordings that inform of facts that are evidence for creation. These recordings include multiple answers to your particular question. I'll point out that all evidence in existence is for one of these two theories ( besides for a combination of these two theories, which contradicts what Christians believe is the word of God, the Bible) and that ignoring all speculation by others allows you to unbiasedly process the remaining information you receive through your senses.

Answer 4

I believe in creation, because when I look at the world, I see something that is so wonderful, that it had to be created by a loving God. And in creationism, people don't change, they stay looking the same. And with the evolution theory I have to wonder. If, as people say, we evolved, then isn't evolution a continuing thing. Then why have we not continued to evolve. We have been the same for thousands of years. Evolution seems to have halted, Some people say that the world is millions of years old. Don't you think in that amount of time, that we would have surely started to evolve even more,according to evolution?

Answer 5

Most, if not all evidences for evolutionism are really anti-creation evidences, with evolutionism cited as the only other possible alternative (the false dichotomy). I'd like to know a piece of evidence that is not anti-creation, but distinctly pro-evolutionism. Something evolution/Darwin predicts we should find that should not be based upon other scientific theories or other explanations.

Please, let your answers be as testable, parsimonious, empirical, consistent, and falsifiable as possible. Thanks.

Answer 6

I would like to say first of all that it is called "Faith" for a reason.

Secondly, what I personally think (and I'm honestly not sure of my religious beliefs) is that evolution makes a lot of sense. However, where did those things that evolved into everything come from? The Big Bang, scientists tell us. Well... what caused that? Where did the materials that exploded into it come from?

That is the most definitive argument I have come across.

Answer 7

You don't want to believe so I don't think anything would fit your criteria and/or satisfaction. You need to argue with the people at http://trueorigin.org and http://www.answersingenesis.org but not with those on Yahoo Answers.

Just for fun, let me give you the Aesthetical Argument (“Aesthetics” has to do with beauty). The argument is this: The universe exhibits beauty, and man has the ability to appreciate beauty; where did this come from? You see, aesthetic values serve no purpose in a purely materialistic universe. Why do we have it and where did it come from?

Have you ever said to someone, “Look at the beautiful flower or sunset”? You expect the other person to naturally agree with you that it is beautiful: flowers, butterflies, tropical birds and fish, rainbows and sunsets, galaxies and nebula, etc. And we also appreciate beauty in the art of men; how is it that art can sell for millions of dollars?

What is beauty for? What personal or evolutionary end is met by the appreciation of a rainbow, a flower, or a butterfly? As it has been said, “I would like to know how evolution would produce a species that likes to smell and look at flowers that we don’t eat.”

William C. Davis writes, “Humans have numerous features that are more easily explained by theism than by metaphysical naturalism, if only because metaphysical naturalism currently explains all human capacities in terms of their ability to enhance survival. Among these features are the possession of reliable faculties aimed at truth, the appreciation of beauty, and a sense of humor.”

And as Anthony O’Hear has said, “From a Darwinian perspective, truth, goodness, and beauty and our care for them are very hard to explain.”

Every effect must have an adequate cause to produce it. The Scriptures attribute beauty to God.
-Psalm 96:5-6, “For all the gods of the people are idols, but the Lord made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before Him, strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.”
-Ecclesiastes 3:11, “He has made everything beautiful it its time.”
-Matthew 6:28-29, “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these. But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith?”

I have to agree with W.S. Rhodes, “It is difficult to believe that so many beautiful things came into being without any kind of direction by a power sensitive to beauty.”

Now, many people try to dismiss this argument by saying, “What about ugliness?” Well, this is a fallen earth that has been cursed because of sin (Genesis 3), and so we should expect ugliness. But the question is: Where did the beauty and the appreciation for it come from? I come to the same conclusion as Aristotle: “Beauty is the gift of God.”

Answer 8

I can only refer you to materials that you could discredit or find resonance with accordingly.Available as E-books possibly, look for convergence series I II III, or any scientific writings by David Wilcock. Most of what I have read from this man seems to not only be astoundingly eye opening, but backed up with evidence.

Answer 9

The sun gives us energy plus matter equals us right.
So what is the suns energy made of? Light right.
Doesn't God speak of light a lot(he is the light ext)? I think the true us is energy that goes into space when we die. When we eat animals are we that animal?...no. So we are energy(our existence). I think God directs that energy.


Atheists that's called answering a question in a adult Mainer instead of calling him stupid.

Answer 10

How about a thought? A particular thought, like a possibility created from nothing, created from space, created out of nothing with no past, nothing predictable, nothing containing any energy outside itself for its own sustaining momentum? A thought, from nothing, spoken out loud and then generated and manifested in time, in history, with substance and dimensions? Does that count?