The holes in Darwin's theory of evolution basically are scientific evidence of Creation because if Darwinism is flawed, what else is there? And we could do the Coca-Cola Can Theory, but I doubt we'd have to. Creation obviously has a Creator. I can't show you absolute, flawless, scientific proof of Creationism because proof is not faith, and I follow and believe Christ by faith, but there is evidence, as there is with evolution (which, personally, I think is flawed, and a very cruel hoax). I hope that this is helpful. -In the service of the Master. Thank you and God bless you!

Everything is so complex, so perfectly desingned, that there is no way it could have come into existence on its own. Every feature of all organisms has been given to it by God, because He knows what is perfect. It is ridiculous to think that organisms just happen to genetically mutate in a way that is beneficial to it, and then decide to "keep" it. Think about sex. Do you think something like that could be brought about by chance? God made sex as a way for a husband and a wife to express their love for each other. Many people have taken this gift from God and perverted it, most commonly by having sex with people they have very little idea if they want to spend the rest of their life with or not. Sex is not just something you do for fun with people you like! When a man and a woman have made a commitment that they will spend the rest of their lives as one, then it's OK. Not to mention, it is a lot more special, there isn't that awkwardness between the two of you. I just don't think that it would be so "great" if it was not designed by a loving God who cares for His creations, and wants the best for us. If it wasn't for His creation of it, it could be a painfull process that people only did if they wanted children. Would you be OK with that? I thought not.

Well, if all you're asking for is "evidence", I'll toss in the Bible. Note: I don't really completely agree with either "creation science" or "evolution" per se, but rather believe in creation (not the same as "creation science") and don't take too much of a stand on the details of how it happened, while considering the Bible, for myself, to be "suggestive" that the theory of evolution hasn't got everything right.

I propose a very scientific experiment. Start with 2 identical work areas supplied with identical materials. Into one room place an engineer and in the other room no intelligent force. Check the results periodically. Repeat the experiment frequently with different materials and different engineers. Chart the results. Measure the complexity of design of the materials in each area. My pre-experiment hypothesis is that the area with the best design will indicate the most likely scenario for the production of the more complex universe. Let's leave religion completely out of this. We will only believe what we directly observe.

quote: --- Which assumptions are faulty and what understanding do i lack? --- The *assumption* of a creator is what is unscientific. The scientific process is based first on observation, then on testing. Your experiment is based on an invalid assumption, thus is not science. First, you need to support the assumption by providing evidence to suport the existance of a creator. Without that, you have nothing. All your test shows is that creators can create things. It has nothing to do with the natural process of lifeforms changing over time. quote: --- Put another way, what experiments do you propose to support evolution? --- Are you kidding? There have been thousands. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I posted a very comphrensive answer to some of the criticisms of evolution above in a comment to one of the earlier posters, I think people might find it interesting, I am also up for open minded debate (with evidence!!) about the topics.

I can't help by continue to post quotes from the Fundies Say The Darnest Things site because no one can make a better point on this subject than a Fundie can. So, here we go: "There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the earth is flat. Like so many other Christians in the western world, I believed for many years that science had got it right - that the earth was a sphere, circulating the sun. But then, by the grace of God, I got the courage to start researching this issue for myself. I studied scripture, prayed over scripture, and THEN (and ONLY) then did I return to science with the scriptural teachings in mind. The Bible is absolutely crystal clear that, contrary to the teaching of the evolutionists, the earth is flat." http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/random.aspx?archive=1

creation is a big empty space an only myths and man made suppositions evolution is on dotted lines --------- but has hard real scientific evidence with a few gaps. we shall soon fill the gaps and the myths will be proven to be lies

The following is something to be considered. What would the evidence have to look like for creation (Intelligent Design) to be true? How about 1. A universe that has exploded into being out of nothing. 2. A universe with over 100 fine-tuned, life-enabling constants for this tiny, remote planet called earth. 3. Life that: has been observed to arise "only" from existing life (it has never been observed to arise spontaneously); consists of thousands, even millions of volumes of empirically detectable specified complexity (and is, therefore, more than just non-living chemicals it contains); changes cyclically and only within a limited range; cannot be built or modified gradually ( in other words is irreducibly complex) ; is molecularly isolated between basic types (there is no ancestral progression at the molecular level); leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear "suddenly", do not change, and then disappear suddenly. Bottom line is, the only remaining hope for evolution is time. Presumably, infinite time and an infinite number of events could make anything conceivable. Now, with confirmation of Einstein's general relativity, this last hope of evolution has been proven false by many of the same people hoping evolution is true. Entropy is fact but evolution flies in the face of this Second Law. Evolution requires inconceivable random development of order from chaos. It implies that the most complex machine we have ever observed (the human body), is a product of billions of aberrations of an entropy law that is accepted as fact. That is a stretch of faith. Purposeful creation, on the other hand, fits the entropy law.

Creation religious suppotors: Please provide scientific evidence that supports creationism. Not what you think are supposed holes in evolution, but evidence that supports creationism... ...oh wait hang on you can't, why? because you live in fantasy land where tangerines are tree and the skies are made of marmalade. No one will ever understand the who/what/why/when/which/where/how about creation and just accept it. Be greatful you are living through this life experiance and make the most of it now, stop wasting it by trying to prove a point about nothing!! END OF DISCUSSION!!!

Polonium Halos

All life is scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. The odds of one protein evolving is Ten to the 321st power. You need several proteins to make a single simple cell. The total fundamental particles in the Universe is only Ten to the 134th power. Science is on God's side. I believe in God's Word over the infallibility of man.

my EVIDENCE is in the Creator's or the Intelligent Designer's or the Evolutionist's WORD...HE is Science and my Scientist and my Evolutionist....not trying to be rude or evade the question, just stating facts of my belief.... to have Creationism , there simply has to be a CREATOR, to have an INTELLIGENT DESIGN, there simply has to be an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, to have EVOLUTION , there has to be an EVOLUTIONIST...simple...and man has certainly evolved... there are many scientists , more and more today, simply have no answer than GOD....

Your frame of reference is skewed. Science claims to study only natural phenomena and give only naturalistic answers. God is supernatural. Science cannot "prove" God. Cannot disprove Him either. Sorry.

Great. This is a good simple explanation. If it happened by accident, intelligent designers should be able to duplicate it. Let me know when you've done it. I want to know how. By the way, where can i get the ultrahot plasma? Thanks.

Interesting how this Question is asking for Creation science supporters. But those answers are all neg.

George W. Bush is the best argument for Creationism. I mean, can you imagine that ever evolving?

read the following books for your answers. and for you atheists, before you shoot your mouth off about which you are ignorant. PATTON,ICE AGE EPOCH REHWINKEL, THE FLOOD NELSON, AFTER IT'S OWN KIND EVOLUTION HANDBOOK, EVOLUTION_FACTS.ORG FLEW, THERE IS A GOD RIMMER, SCIENCE AND THE GENESIS THERE ARE ABOUT 20 MORE IF YA WANT THEM, EMAIL ME, ww5776@gmail.com AND I'LL SURE SEND THEM TO YOU.

The answer to this question takes more than a blog. However the book "Genesis and the Big Bang theory" was written by a scientist who's work was to determine if other countries processed nuclear weapons. As he worked on this project, he began to understand concepts about the "Big Bang". He looked at the facts and how they relate to the Genesis story.

The snake as evidence that a supernatural creator exists. LMAO. Seriously, I think the closest thing we have to evidence (and it's not evidence) that a supernatural deity exists and is watching over these people is that these people got through junior high school.

We're sick of listening to the under-educated creationists spin their bull. It's time for them to put up or shut up. Provide testable evidence proving that your God exists or shut up.

how about science, archaeology, textual scholarship, history records all proving Creation? If you want that information, ask and I'll send it to anyone. ww5776@gmail.com. If you're afraid of the truth, don't ask, stay in your little dream world.

You're leaving yourself open to fallacious logic. As every single religious fanatic will only use evidence that supports their preconceived notions. Whilst ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. Which isn't science.

test: this is a test on the "geologic table" and what it is. test, take a giant swimming pool (big) and put all different kinds of rocks (small and big) gravels dirt and anyother kind of material found on earths near surface. Then take a bunch of animals (reptiles fish amphibians birds mammals,molusks plants)etc. now take that giant swimming pool and let it rain on it for 40 days and 40 nights dont stop just keep on raining (im sure a good terenchal rain not a little sprinkls) and make sure to rock the swimming pool back and forth (the word "aswage" is used in the bible there) and let it rock for 1 yearish then take a core sampling or start to cut away the layers and report the findings. verdict you will find everything assorted from top to bottom according to density (if more dense at bottom if lesser dense closer to top) if this is rocks or soil or animals or plants they will be assorted all by density. findings you will find that all the minerals will be formed into perfect layers and layers inbetween those layers (go to grand canyon and youll see them on the walls or go to any mountain where it is cut out a grove through the limestone and you will see layers of layers of limestone and layers of limestone inbetween them. you will also notice that all the animals will be asorted according to density (especially bone density dinosaurs are still alive so you can use the crocodiles and other "non evolved dinos". you will find mollusks near the bottom with fish above them and reptiles and amphibians above them, you will find that mammals are above them and birds above that...(before you say anything) their also will be soeme animals that will be mixed in amongst other layers. some mammals and birds near the reptile layers and some reptiles near the mammalian and avian sections, but for the most part they will be sorted out by layers. . this is just as the geologic table is formed with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense material on top... now does this say that it was done like this...NO it says that an observation to a question (why are their certain layers and animals in layers) and gives a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis to see if it would work out that way... this is just like the hypothesis of the "evolutionary geologic table" stating that as animals died off they would be in that layer and as time went by more "dust from meteorites" and such would start to fill in around that creature and this would make layers of similar sediment. until we get what we see now. their is no problem seeing the world that way if you want but realize that they are both testable and provable and retestable(thats real science) but they can not answer how it happened because no one has a videocamera from there 6000 or 60,000,000 years ago and thus they can only stay as theories that seem to fit the bill. this is why it is difficult for either side to "PROVE" their side but we can have millions of "proofs" that seem to fit the bill, especially when we realize our biasists of were we raised with "millions and millions of years ago..." or were we raised with "In the begging GOD created..." we all have biasists. and thats ok just as scientists we need to seperate out theory vs fact. theory is this is here now ?how did it get that way...well this could have happened and then try to replicate that (evolution or creationism...vs fact 2 apples put into a basket with three more apples gives me 5 apples 2+3=5 or I add Oxygen and Hydrogen and have an electric spark between them they burn (rocket fuel) or I drop a ball, I drop a ball, I drop a ball, yep I can test gravity. thats science even if we dont have all the resources or right answers. evolution or creationism is based on prior beliefs of how the world existed or became... hope that makes sense.

I want to answer your question on your terms if possible, but i need to know those terms. Help me, please, by way of example. Is the Sphinx in Egypt designed or of purely natural origin? Please provide scientific evidence that supports your answer. I will follow your pattern. Thanks much.

I inadvertently placed a piece in this box that belonged elsewhere and so cut it here. I'll thank an admin to clean up my mistake and accept my apology. Mr Josh downrated my response as illogical and rightly so. I applaud him for explaining his reasons.

BTW, 'creation science' has as much science in it as homeopathy, astrology, prayer or seance have!

Perhaps this may help (creation 'scientists'): If you conduct an 'engineering' experiment on the billion-years time-scale of evolution, you would find that you are staring at the end-result of that ongoing experiment. It is called "Evolution, the greatest show on Earth. (And it's FREE!) * Physics and biology have widely different time-scales. (This is the point that stumps creationists. (they just can't get it) Read Richard Dawlkins' 'The Blind watchmaker, first published in the 80's I think. * You can make an origami bird in 3 minutes, build a hut in 3 days, a wall in 3 hours, a house in 3 months, a tall bridge [as at Millau, France] in 3-5 years; but it would take an ape 50,000 years to lose its stoop and walk upright through successive generations!

You have heard of the "Big Bang" right? That was the point of creation. It was a blast of pure energy which is what God is. God is the pure energy/life force that is in the heart of every cell/atom of everything on this earth. With out it, all things vanish. After the creation, evolution began. It's all part of the same process. Science is the study of god's great creation and only serves to show how amazing it truly is.

OK, I HAVE INFO TO SUPPORT CREATION. SEND EMAIL TO SOME WHERE I CAN SEN IT TO YA.

The very complexity of life itself is mind boggling, it every aspect. Certainly only someone of infinite power and intelligence could have caused it to be. As for the flood, if you look at a globe, the huge gorges you see going through the oceans, that's where the waters of the deep broke forth from(there's scientific fact, no doubt, and there is still water beneath the crust to). Causing the whole earth to flood but also, basically re-landscaping the whole earth. When I look around I just know... you can just see it everything works together and the effects of sin are so real and obvious. Though you prolly won't count this but the story of the creation of Adam and Eve has been past on from generation to generation, regardless the fact that most people ignore it.

(Continuation of the incredibly long comment thread started here: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1067010)

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no scientific proof for creationism. At the very root of all creationist dogma is the idea of "faith". What that means is "we can't prove any of this but you have to believe anyway". "Intelligent Design" was devised as an alternate theory to evolution, for Creationists. As such it should be able to be put to the same tests as evolutionary theory, but it cannot. I.D. says "Look at the many complex creatures of the earth. What are the chances that they would come to be as perfect as they are unless there is a God who designed them all." They even point to the human eye and stress how complex and beautiful it is, therefore there must be a God. IMHO, this is where the argument breaks down. The human eye is one of the worst designed pieces of crap I've ever seen. If I was to grant that it's existence is proof of a Designer, "Intelligent" wouldn't be the adjective I'd be using to describe them. I'm no where near the intelligence of "God" and yet I could design a more efficient eye in five minutes. Hope this helps.

There is none LOL. Because creationism is bull.

:) http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/a3/Creationistlogic0.jpg http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/89/Real_evolution.jpg http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/9e/Creationismlogic.gif http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/3e/WTF_VFX.jpg http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b4/Creationistfamilyguy.jpg

God must be really awesome.

Isn't it a violation of AB rules to sell things here?

"You just need to think of these building blocks as life instead on inanimate objects." O cause life is much more complex that makes sense...*rolls eyes* besides they started out inanimate. O wait I'm prolly wrong! single celled organisms were here in the first place(i forgot i don't know anything about evolution or science, every little bit of it so darn complex an average mind just can't wrap his mind around any of the scientific concepts duh!)