What scientific evidence is there for creation?

Question

Mention as much as you can please!

Answer 1

someone had to create something for that something to evolve

Answer 2

there is evidence that can be used for either side in and of itself.  However, when a lot of evidence is examined together, creationism fails almost completely to explain phenomena.

Someone could say the fact anything exists at all is evidence of creation, while someone else would take various observations and say that science has a better explanation.

Answer 3

The only scientific evidence I can think of is the Miller-Urey experiment. Basically, the scientific standpoint on evolution is that in the early stages of Earth's birth, there were enough raw materials in the oceans and there was enough physical force from waves/electricity from lightning to spontaneously form a living creature. However, in the Miller-Urey experiment, simulating the early earth with temperature, raw materials, and electricity, they managed to spontaneously create a self-sustaining organism. Though this seems to disprove creation, this experiment has never been able to replicate their results. So as of now, creation is just as likely as spontaneous evolution of life.

Answer 4

The Big Bang - generally accepted scientifically as the 'birth' or 'creation' of our known universe.

From nothing came everything - if that's not creation, I don't know what is.  

Answer 5

  The creation science model is a valid scientific theory. It has observable, testable, repeatable facts to support it. It makes predictions. It is falsifiable. The strength of each of these points varies with an individuals own worldview. This is true with the evolution model and other scientific theories and laws. Nature is full of wonders and paradox's as viewed from our point of limited technological and mental capabilities.

What we are looking for is an acceptable "first cause." Now questions on the ultimate first cause can technological and mental capabilities. forever, for example, who made God, or what was before the big bang, what was before that, what was before that. We are not concerned with ad infinum arguments, only with an acceptable frame of reference.

Here is only a few of the evidences for creation.

1. Creation : This is the ultimate evidence for a creator. You can't have a creation without a creator. There are no natural laws of physics or probabilities of time and matter that can account for the level of complexity and precision of the creation. This includes DNA and all life, the four fundamental laws of physics, and the reality of

non-material things like love and hate.

     A. DNA - DNA contains the richest wealth of information in the known universe. This information is contained in the most efficient way we have ever seen or could concieve of. Not only is DNA the richest wealth of information, it is the ONLY information in the universe which all other information is derived from or dependant upon. Variation and natural selection would work equally well for every other material or molecule in the universe but we don't see any information or complex arrangments of components taking place above the first level arrangment of atom in things like snowflakes or crystals.

    

     B. The four fundemental laws. The laws of physics are so well tuned to each other, scientist have been quoted remarking things like "This has to be rigged!" If the four fundemental laws were not as precisionly tuned as they were the whole physical universe would either be instantly destroyed in nuclear meltdown or radiation death, burn up like a fire - we can see this in sulfer and other flamable material, the slightest change in energy starts a chain reaction.- The universe could have instantly collapesed in on itself. Many more scenarios could be imagined.

   C. The existance of non-material things.  Things like love, hate, morality, justice, honor, guilt, self sacrifice provide us with evidence that there is an absoute truth outside of the material world. The materials in this world do not experience these forces. Although the force is carried through material means -brain waves, chemicals)  it is not intrinsic to these physical means. (that was hard to explain in words but I think you know what I mean)

Predictions,  Here are only a few predictions the Christian Creation Model would make.

1. There are basic kinds (not species) of animals that cannot interbreed or change from one kind to another. A dog cannot breed with an aligator. The definition of a kind is : A group of animals that could produce offspring when they were origionally created. Some rabbits cannot produce offspring with other rabbits but they are the same kind. The could in the beginning but through limitied preprogramed variation the individuals are specialized to the point of infertility.

2. We will find billions of fossils in the ground. These fossils will be contained in sedimentary rock layers. The fossils will have some sorting due to location of habitat, mobility, inteligents, and body density.

3. We will see hundreds of sedimentry rock layers covering the entire globe. These were deposited during the world wide flood of Noah. The layer are a result of hydrologic sorting. We will find polystrata fossils (trees) running up through multiple rock layers conecting them, proving there was not millions of years of time between them.

4. We will see mankind turning more and more godless as the world comes near the end of this age. All world politics will converge and center around the middle east. Governments and peoples will become more integrated in a one world globalized community. This and much more was prophesized about over 2,000 year ago.

Here is a couple of things that would falsify the Christian creation science model.

1. We see new information created itself with purely random causes.

2.We see an animal or an insect change into a new basic kind.

3. Mankind turns from war to peace. The short lived peace treaty signed by the anti-christ doesn't count.  

Answer 6

The arguments for creationism or "Intelligent Design" as opposed to Darwinian evolution generally focus on two or three areas...

1) The eye, a motile cell, some "form" is just too complex to have evolved from simpler forms.

2) Macro evolution (speciation) has not been observed, and where are "all" the intermediate forms?

3) Why don't we see several forms of Homo (Sapiens, Neanderthalis, etc.) co-existing like other species do (cats, horses, dogs, etc.)?

There are other "arguments" as well, of course.

The motile cell argument has pretty well been "put to bed" even among the most "die-hard" creationists.  From "injectors" in viruses to flagellum is no longer considered "impossible" via evolution.

Scientists have now witnessed speciation in flat worms (and micro-evolution) was never in dispute, thank goodness.

There were overlaping period of many Homo species.  For some reason (speach, perhaps) Sapiens dominated all other species of Homo.

Comparitive embriology,

The fossil record,

Biochemisty,

Homologous structures,

DNA comparison

are just a few of the scientific observations of the Darwinian view that strengthen that theory.  There is more peer review and more questions to be answered, but creationism does not come close to "embracing the data" the wat evolution theory does.  Whether punctuated equilibrium (the current thinking) or gradualism, creationsism just can't "hag" intellectually with Darwin.

-Fred

Answer 7

There is no scientific evidence for creation, nor will there ever be, because creation is a matter of religion, not science.  Bad things happen when religion and science mix; just ask Gallileo.

All of the evidence to date tells us that the universe is 15 billion years old or so, the Earth is 5 billion years old, and life somehow arose on this planet about 3.5 bya.  All of the evidence, from many different disciplines, all point to the same conclusions.