What is the strongest arguement you have for Creation?

Question

So many people believe in creation on faith alone. What is your strongest argument or evidence that supports your view of creation?

Answer 1

I look at the fact that living matter does not come from nonliving matter, and that order does not arrange itself out of disorder. The odds of everything in the galaxy falling in place exactly as they did are a negative exponent. If one thing, for instance the moon, was out of place by just a tiny margin, life would be unsustainable. And the planets, which formerly I thought were useless, cold, and ugly, actually take hits for the earth and protect it from meteors.

Answer 2

Hi Sarah and Happy Holidays for you today.

As a Christian our life is based on faith in the impossible. For that is who God is. God is a Spirit and they that worship God worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus told the doubting Thomas after he was resurrected "blessed are those that did not feel my wounds but believed in the resurrection report".

Why is belief and faith so important to God? Because what we see here in this physical world had a beginning and did not exist before. And when a man believes or has faith he enters into the realm where anything is possible and is not bound to the physical laws of this universe.

Recent scientific evidence shows the universe did have a beginning and is called the Big Bang theory. The best evidence for the Big Bang is in the link below. It is the cosmic background microwaves that exist uniformly in the entire universe.

This universe had a beginning. Scientific theory did not exist to show the universe had a beginning in ancient times. Instead the first man and woman through contact with God affirmed as truth and fact that God the creator made it. They believed Gods word alone and had faith in him. And Moses hundreds of years wrote down the creation hymn from Adam reaffirming the earth was created.

The Bible's truth was only proved scientifically thousands of years later when men became technologically wise enough to observe the universe and asked the right question. They got an answer that agreed entirely with the Biblical account of creation.

This is my opinion based on faith in God's word that has only recently been confirmed by scientific evidence..

Answer 3

I don't know about strongest (that is pretty subjective), but here is one of the many arguments for the existence of God (the cosmological argument).

The argument is simply this: The cosmos is here and must be explained as to how it got here. This argument is using the law of cause and effect, which states: Every effect must have a preceding and adequate cause (the cause must come first and be adequate). What does it mean by adequate? Well, the building didn’t collapse because a mosquito landed on it. The tsunami didn’t hit because someone threw a pebble into the ocean.

Now, when it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal (it has always been here), (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist—but I don’t think you would buy that. So let’s examine these three possibilities to see which is the most reasonable.

First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy).

This law states that everything goes downhill from order to disorder, more usable energy to less. This law is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold (heat transfer) and why this building will fall apart if it is not kept up with. If someone doesn’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics, just challenge them to live forever; even with this awesome machinery we have in our bodies, you will eventually wear out and die.

We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, etc. As Psalm 102:26 says, the heavens “will wear out like a garment.” Given enough time, the universe will experience what some call a “heat death” where there is maximum entropy; every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible (speaking of energy transfer); all energy will be evenly distributed.

Eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. Evolutionary astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow said, “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning.” And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause.

The evolutionary astronomers know this and so they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence). But there is still a major problem—you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.”

Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!

Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? I think Hebrews 3:4 answers that pretty well, “...every house is built by someone...”

Let’s say I walk into my livingroom and see a crayon drawing of our family on the wall. When I ask my daughter where it came from, will I accept her answer of, “It just appeared there; it came from nothing”? Her grandparents might, but I won’t.

It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. As R.C. Sproul has said, “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing.

Besides, the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) argues against it. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (without a God, this Universe would have to be a closed system) the amount of energy present in that system is constant (it cannot be created or destroyed), it can only be converted from one form to another. So, if the Universe initially contained no energy, and then it spontaneously generated all of the energy in the Universe now, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of energy in the Universe would have remained constant and unchanged at zero.

And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause; God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.

What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.

Answer 4

The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.

Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .

Answer 5

I am not a theist but it would appear that the creationists strongest argument is the intricacy and specialization of natural functions like the sensory organs. They also seem to demand that the dating systems used by secular archaeologists are inaccurate past a certain time in the past.

The problem with all of it is that knowing when, where and how the universe as we know it came to be will not help us live today. It only makes for divisive argument and continual separation of belief. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we are as living organisms. The pursuit of these answers is a huge waste of resources and only continues the mad drive to find 'the answer' which will never be found.

Answer 6

Since the creation myth from the bible is anti-scientific faith is the only possible reason to believe it. There is nothing wrong with that if you are religious, religion is based on faith. Many people believe in a more symbolic interpretation of the bible, which allows you to learn from the bible and embrace science at the same time.

Answer 7

that's a certainty that evolutionists do no longer choose you to nicely known...evolution does not even fulfill the three user-friendly tenets of the scientific approach. All technology and engineering pupils understand that, to fulfill the standards of the scientific approach, an result must be: - observable - repeatable - predictable As a Creationist, i will hypothesize that, at any wellbeing midsection, the offspring of two people is additionally human. That speculation is observable, repeatable, and predictable. An evolutionist says there is an danger that the offspring of two people (or any species for that remember, it extremely is the very crux of speciation) could finally end up being some extra-developed existence form. it extremely is in no way predictable, it extremely is not repeatable, and has in no way been pronounced. hence, evolution fails even the main user-friendly of scientific validation. To all you who hate technology, please provide me a thumbs-down.

Answer 8

The unexplainable i billionth of a second between nothing and the big bang smacks of creationism. The bible story is as flawed as evolutionary theory.

Answer 9

The world is so complex, so detailed that a mere accident couldn't possibly create it all. Think about it - If water was just an incredibly small fraction different, we wouldn't be able to drink it. Our planet just HAPPENS to be full of oxygen, which is one of the things that we need to survive, and many more 'coincidences' like that.
You might argue that we adapted this way, but wouldn't it be easier to not have need for things like food and water? We would survive in harsher conditions.
I won't even go in to the complexity of the human body, or even of life itself; that would stretch for pages. But I think that even something so simple as an eye would take the entire 4.8 billion years to create in itself.
I believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the theory of creationism.

If even in our most advanced science, we have not even been able to re-create an oyster, then how could life happen by a mere fluke?

~Tiger

Answer 10

1) God is Love.
2) We need something out side ourselvers to survive.
3) Love is gained by accepting something outside ourselves for ourselves.
4) Once accepted, we gain the Love of God.