Creationists: IN YOUR OWN WORDS, can you explain to me some evidence for Creationism?

Question

I've asked a few questions regarding Creationism in the past, and I usually get a few people--who are, I'm sure, trying to be helpful--who post a few links to Creationist websites.

I like to think that I'm an open-minded person, so I've gone and looked at these sites, and I've found that the so-called "evidence" they offer to support Creationism is...pretty bad.

In fact, I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has any inkling of things like geology, etc. can look at this evidence and be convinced.

So I'm wondering if Creationists have an understanding of the supposed "science" and "evidence" that support their...I'll call it an hypothesis for lack of a better word.

So what I'm asking is for you simply to pick some phenomenon, occurence, process, etc. that you feel supports the hypothesis of Creationism, and explain it to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS, that I might be enlightened. Please no links or cut-and-paste; I want to hear YOU describe it.

DocSpoc: In answer to your questions, No and No. Did this pertain in some way to my question?

Charles W: I guess I was looking for something a little more SPECIFIC than this. You make your case for general intelligent design, but I'm looking for evidence of Creationism, evidence that the biblical account of creation is true. I'm agnostic; I don't completely rule out the idea of a supreme being, but that's not what this question is about. Thanks anyway.

alwalclif: None. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. I don't deny the possibility of a god of some kind. I'm specifically asking about Creationism, the literal interpretation of the creation of the universe in the bible.

There seems to be some confusion about this point.

Edge: Thank you; I believe you are the first person two have given an answer to the question I asked.

I would point out that cuttlefish use a chemical other than hemoglobin to fix oxygen in their blood--it isn't as efficient as hemoglobin, so their heart (or hearts, I can't remember) have to work harder. As you point out, it would make sense that God would have used the most efficient chemicals and processes in all of his creations, would he not? But the cuttlefish says otherwise...

R.D. In response to your first point, I believe you might find something called "the anthropic principle" of interest.

To your second point, I have seen a documentary or two about the "scientific adam", the single man from which everyone on earth can trace his or her descent. However, the existence of this person is a far cry from the biblical Adam and does not imply in any way that the biblical account of creation is true.

waldguy: I seem to recall hearing that Darwin got hung up on the same thing. Personally I don't find the evolution of the eye (which, if I recall, may have happened on several different occasions) to be all that confounding, but your point is a valid one nevertheless.

I would still like to differentiate between belief in a general intelligent designer (which you seem to support) and the biblical account of creation (in 6000 years, as most Creationsists assert), which was the subject of my question. Thanks for your input.

Old guy: Again, there seems to be some confusion with regard to Creationism versus generic intelligent design. I am agnostic and not necessarily opposed to the possibility of some supreme being (although your first point can be refuted with relative ease using the anthropic principle).

Your answer makes a decent argument for intelligent design, but not for Creationism (the idea that the biblical account of the creation of the universe is literally true).

Although I take issue with your offering of "psychic abilities" as evidence of anything. Psychic abilities almost certainly do not exist. (If they did, surely somebody would have won James Randi's $1,000,000 by now.)

Nicolas C: Thanks. I needed that.

alaska girl:

Actually, what you say about Genesis 1-27 is not true in the least. As one example, it says that grass was created before any animal, whereas the scientific concensus is that grass evolved less than 100 million years ago--there are plenty of animals known to be more than twice that old.

Questioner:

"-Or fossils too low or too high in the geologic column."

According to what?

"-Or polystrate fossils (fossils that extent through several layers of strata)."

How is this a problem?

"-Or sedimentary strata found in the wrong stratigraphic order."

Overthrusts, antiform synclines, synform anticlines.

"-Or missing strata."

Deposition, erosion, more deposition.

"-Or thousands of feet of strata that is bent and folded without cracking (which must have happened while it was all still wet)."

*slaps forehead* Do Creationists account for folded igneous rock by saying it was "wet" too? Rocks can fold perfectly well without breaking, ignoramus.

"-Or strata that lacks any erosion features with smooth lines between the layers."

No erosional features? Maybe, um, there wasn't any erosion.

-Or strata that are supposed to be many millions of years apart that are inter-bedded.

Again: deposition, erosion, more deposition.

"-Or fossils of marine organisms found in high mountains, all over the earth."

You really don't know the least thing about geology, do you? Do you think the rocks that make up mountains started out as mountains?

"-Or out-of-place human artifacts (Cremo and Thompson have done a thorough job of listing some out-of-place artifacts in their book, Forbidden Archeology)."

I've seen lists of "artifacts" like the ones you're probably talking about. Most fail to impress when the least bit of scientific analysis is applied.

"-Or “living fossils” (animals and plants that supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today)."

Funny you should mention this, I just asked a question about it: "living fossils" ought to serve as evidence of evolution, not Creationism. (no room to discuss it here; see my other questions...)

Answer 1

Charle's W's answer is flawed. You can't look at the world around you and just be overwhelmed with the answer that says this has a creator. BlackTal answer is also flawed, grossly biased. Sorry, but the statement that Christianity is the "only religion that aligns with these findings" is silly at best. For one, it's simply not true. Christianity includes some wonderful compassionate words in it, but also contains a boatful of inconsistencies. The bible you read today, surprise, is known to have been incorrectly translated from Greek. The words you think are right, have been changed over time. Meaning, the bible has evolved in it's own way, to serve man.

Most creationists aren't happy with you believing that some sort of creator made all this. Just saying Intelligent Design isn't enough anyway. It must be more narrowed as BlackTal has done. They continue to narrow it down to their creator, their book, their rituals. But hey, I thought we were just talking about a force or creator mechanism. Now we've got this prophet that people promise is true. If we didn't know that Tolkien wrote the Ring Trilogy, but it was just found. Why would we not think that was part of history. Or if a committee in 321, under Constantine had access to the trilogy, they might have included parts of it in the official bible. Because if it fits, it fits right?

It's really really hard to conceive of a length of time that is proposed for evolution to have occurred. But much of that has evidence behind it. Don't get confused with the word theory. Most scientists consider it a fact that evolution occurs. Adaptations occur in bacteria and viruses that we witness all the time. We are related to animals, especially primates and pigs even. Our mind gets in the way of a lot of things, but do you ever see animals doing some sort of prayer rituals. Do they just feel loved? Why don't we? Oh that's right, the convenient Adam and Eve Fruit story. That covers that issue.

I personally believe that some sort of innate paranoia that might aid us for protection, also creates a sort of superstition, seeing patterns or having false beliefs.

Superstitiion drives religious thinking. If you met a guy who said that God was punishing your town because it had a terrible rainstorm the night before. You'd think he was crazy. Most people would. But it's the same as all kinds of other religious superstition. Bottom line, we don't want to think that we are just here, that we have to create our own purpose. It can be depressing. But we can find our higher purpose and we can teach people and we can contemplate and create.

Looking at all the leaps you'd be expected to make in order to really latch on to say biblical religion, why do it? So conveniently, God is love, but yet God is unknowable. God purposely is hidden, God wants you to worship, but yet never appears. These leaps against reason and logic are rewarded too. People who don't think are rewarded in heaven somehow.

Look, part of me wishes for there to be some sort of afterlife. I can do good things in my life and maybe I'll see a better situation afterwards. I can do those things and see a better situation now too. I can remember that my thinking is a good thing. That reasoning is important in society, that you do the best you can with the logic and tools you have. Why create problems that can't be solved, which is essentially what Faith is doing. It's creating a need to not reason, to ignore evidence and just believe.

Some Christian's just want you saved, or want you part of their community. But you have to be really wary of things. Even innocuous things like that. If you are good, you'll do good things. You don't need a fear of punishment in the afterlife to convince you.

Another thing to remember is that most people don't really read the bible. They pick and choose from it. You can't follow Deutoronomy in this modern society without going to prison. So the bible as we know it, is not perfect. Well what is perfect? Well, nothing. We know that. But we are told the Bible is perfect. Why are we told that? The questions go on and on. It's nice to just throw them out all together. And then see what actually floats to the surface afterwards. What can you use, and follow. what is enlightening when you don't have to take it all on faith?

Answer 2

Well, if you read Genesis Ch1 verses 1-27, you will find that the creation took place in the same order evolutionists figure the universe was formed. This is a pretty amazing coincidence. As for the time scale, who is to say what really is a day to an eternal being.

No, I am not a Christian, but I have to respect some of the things in their book.

Did you know it was a Catholic priest who developed the big bang theory back in the 1920's?

Answer 3

In my search to explain origins, I got stumped by the development of the eye. No one could explain to me how such a complex organ could evolve, one that can sense light, an incredible color spectrum, focus, allow more or less light in, send an inverse image to the brain, have the brain make sense of it, and all in splits of a second. Did these pieces slowly randomly evolve from a "light sensitive patch of skin" on one or another type of non-seeing organism until "Voila", a baby could see? I realize there are degrees of sight in some organisms, but the impossible numbers of positive "accident" mutations to develop a functioning eye takes just a little too much faith for me. I can't get my head around a naturalistic process on this one, nor can I find a really good explanation among the evolutionists.

Edited Response: Ya, I know Darwin got hung up on this, and others are still trying to explain. I also realize this would only be an argument for intelligent design, perhaps opening the way to theistic evolution and not necessarily creationism. I guess my point is that holding to any belief about origins takes some measure of faith either way, a point that evolutionists seem rather reluctant to concede.

Answer 4

I am currently very interested in the mechanics of the universe. The amount of dark matter and dark energy required to maintain the expansion that we see accelerating is approaching an omnipresent level. I am not going to suggest that because we don't fully understand this material or its quantity is evidence of God but, to me there are some truly amazing things that suggest order. To me order is all most an artifact of a creator. Some are suggesting that everything is energy. One interesting fact about energy is that you can not create new energy but only transfer it from on form to another. So, if this universe is a mass of energy vibrating at different rates it must be a reflection of another energy source. That source appears to have intent and order.

Edit: checkmate - Please explain how consciousness arises from our biological mind? Further explain why natural selection would have favored our level of sentience being that is beyond the requirements for Homo sapiens to flourish on this planet? How do physic phenomena occur among humans? I am not talking about the late night 1-900 idiots but more like the ones used by the military to locate targets within buildings?

I won't bore you with mysteries as I am confidant that your mind is closed to new possibilities.

Edit: I do not take the Creation account offered in scripture and as interpreted by man as true or even remotely close to true.

I do not put a great deal of my argument basis on physic phenomena either. It is however, apparent that their does seam to be a universal or common consciousness that a few have been able to tap into.

Answer 5

Charles W. got off to a great start.Some of the greatest minds in the scientific world are now admitting that the universe shows strong evidence of intelligent design.If this is the case how much greater is it evident in complex life forms? Man has been able to create simple amino acids in the lab by creating conditions believed to exist in the primordial soup and stimulating it with an electrical charge.This is as simplistic as holding a bolt and saying you have evidence a stealth fighter could evolve.Those amino acids must join in a very precise order to form DNA and once that occurs you still have a long way to go for life to evolve.You need a language,a very complex language to bring order,hence RNA.Things continue to get more complex and the statistics that got us to this point of all this occuring by chance is a ratio so numerically large it is beyond our comprehension.Just as mind boggling are the statistics that authors spanning thousands of years could write books giving such amazingly accurate details of the birth,life and even the death of a man who would unite the created with the creator. The form of death described by the prophet at that time would not be invented for hundreds of years after the prophets death.It is historical fact that this man existed.It was documented in both religious and secular writings.This man was either who he says he was or a liar.His followers suffered persecution and execvution rather than deny him.It's true that other religions have their martyrs,but only Christianity lines up so well with the evidence coming forth from present day scientific findings.Man's greatest need is to be loved yet that need has never been totally fullfilled by another.If man was created,why would his creator put within him this need that no other could fullfil.Only Christianity teaches that man can have a personal relationship with his creator and experience perfect,unconditional love. Man in his imperfection has tried to confine the message of the creator to a set of rules,to place Him in a box so to speak.His message was simple, believe that I am who I say I am,and I will do the rest.I am a college grad.I studied the sciences,but what I was asked to believe back then took far more faith than I was capable of producing.I found it much easier to believe in intelligent design by a creator based on everthing I saw around me and on the great complexity that I learned of in science in the simplest single celled organism or the perfect balance of the universe. When we look at the similarities in life forms from the simplest to the most complex which we base the theory of evolution on,do we not see the same similarities,the same basic building blocks in all of mans creations and yet we know that they are by intelligent design.Carl Sagan believed in intelligent design before his death and believed we would someday have the answers.He didn't want to look for them in a book already written. H e wanted to hear them from an ET of superior intelligence.I heard recently that genetics has gotten even more complex.It seems that beyond the language in RNA there is another language that can create different results from an identical section of DNA. It turns particular genes in that section on or off.

Answer 6

Well, did you know in fact that the earth spins at the exact speed to support human life? If it spun .00001 mph faster we would die b/c we would all be frozen, just like if we spun .00001 mph slower we would all burn up. To me thats way too much of a coincidence.

And also, the human race has recently been able to trace its origins back to a single gene pool which MIGHT prove the existence of Adam and Eve.

I am a christian, but I do not believe that every word in the bible is true however. I like to believe myself as an open-minded person as well. So I hope this helped, unless of course you werent looking for help in the first place. I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinon. So I hope that the evidence I have given you will help you make that decision on whether or not to believe in a God. Good luck.

Answer 7

I am both a Christian and a scientist and I agree in many cases I find the creationist websites lacking. However I fully believe in creation. As to evidence, the evidence is much the same as what supports evolution. For instance metabolism and the process of glycolysis. It is ubiquitous (found everywhere). This is provided as evidence of evolution. We evolved from our ancestors and they had this pathway and so do we and basically every living thing. I see it another way. I see a creator who designed a good system and then put it in all His creations. The same is true when people compare chimp DNA and human DNA. We have much the same body plan and the same biological processes. Is this proof of evolution or God? To me it is proof of God. I have studied the cell and the processes that go on in it. To me there is no question after my years of study that there is a God.

Answer 8

It is simple to believe that the world was created and all life within it in 6 days, for we are only temporary creatures, and what does it matter whether those days were many, as you say, or few, as I believe.

Answer 9

Well If I tell you, you would not believe so
Here it is
God Created the whole universe every things in it
it step by step God show you how He form the earth \
starting in the Book of Genesis
the earth is form less starting there read it for yourself it is in the bible He made human out of dirt and give life to it that is evidence He created every things in SIX days it is you who confuse yourself by choosing not to believe.
More better understanding why done you ask God Himself
To understand spiritual thing you must have the mind of God therefore You must believe in Jesus as your personal savior

Answer 10

Well, you asked and they answered. No, they can't. Incidentally, RNA is not found in junkyards. RNA is the basis of evolution and if the best creationists can do is to equate the complexity of a living organism with a motorcar, then evolution theory will be safe for a very long time.