Social Question

Charles's avatar

What are the best arguments supporting Creationism?

Asked by Charles (4815points) May 1st, 2012

I’m curious as to the best arguments supporting creationism. By creationism, I’m referring to the idea that a Creator created matter and species as is.

For example, people who believe in evolution have physical evidence such as species having similar skeleton structures, fossil evidence, geographic distribution of similar looking species, etc. What do people who believe creationism say to best support their argument?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

25 Answers

Blackberry's avatar

“God started evolution”.

Checkmate, biologists.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

I dunno, that’s like asking for the most appetizing turd.

syz's avatar

“Best” is a relative word. There are no “good” arguments for Creationism.

Qingu's avatar

There are no arguments supporting creationism outside of claims by religious texts. “Creationism is true because it says so in the Bible… and the Bible is true.”

Creationists often use arguments against evolution. For example, they often claim (wrongly) that structures like the flaggelate motor or the eye are too complex to have evolved. The implication is that therefore, these structures must have been created. But this implication does not logically follow.

poisonedantidote's avatar

- My daddy aint a monkey.

- Why are there still monkeys?

- Satan put fossils there to test our faith.

EDIT: oh, I almost forgot “I’ll punch you for Jesus!”.

mothermayi's avatar

^^ <punch>

“All the beauty and diversity in the world could not have possibly happened by accident.”

Supacase's avatar

“for the bible tells me so”. I’ve yet to hear anything better. If you believe that you don’t worry about having an argument. The whole point is having faith instead of proof.

ragingloli's avatar

They have no good arguments for creationism/ID.
Oh, they will try to point out “holes” in the Theory of Evolution and make arguments from ignorance, as if that would make creationism more credible. It does not.

Paradox25's avatar

It depends upon which creationist (especially the young earth variety) whom you ask. Many creationists tend to be hostile to relativity theories, but now some are trying to use SR and GR to support their young earth creationism with the space/time entity concept. Fossil placement has also been used to try to support the great flood. They generally attack carbon dating methods, even though many creationists seemed to have little problem using this method when it may had potentially supported one of their arguments.

Irreducible complexity has also been used by them, and may be their strongest argument thus far, due to the difficulty that certain bacteria may have had evolving and surviving because of the structure of their bodies. Their contention that the bacteria involved here would had never evolved in such a way because that would have been detrimental to their survival, shows that natural selection failed here. The other stronger argument here is the complexity of DNA coding. Of course young earth creationists aren’t the only theists to use these arguments, and neither of the latter two subjects that I’ve brought up deal with the age of the universe.

True science must not be about proving propaganda, but about finding the truth, whether we are comfortable with what that is or not.

ragingloli's avatar

@Paradox25
The complexity of DNA is not an argument for creationism, It is an argument from ignorance.
And creationists have yet to show a single example of irreducible complexity.

Sunny2's avatar

The only true argument from a creationist would be, and you’ll never hear it from them, is “It makes me feel more comfortable with what I don’t know, to know that Someone is in control.”

Paradox25's avatar

@ragingloli I’m not a creationist, at least in the literal sense, but I didn’t know that the issue with the bacteria flagellum was ‘debunked’.

ragingloli's avatar

@Paradox25
It was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system
If you take away parts of the flagellum, sure, it can not be used as a motor anymore.
But it makes for a nice needle to inject poison.

flutherother's avatar

God said “Let there be light” and there was light. Science says there was a Big Bang but we don’t know why. There isn’t that great a difference.

Qingu's avatar

@flutherother, actually there is.

One involves a mythical Mesopotamian sky deity named Yahweh, falsely claims that the existence of Earth predates the existence of light, and provides no explanation for how Yahweh created light, let alone why.

The other is a consequence of the proven theory of relativity, functions as an explanation for the cosmic microwave background, and is an active area of research as to the “why” question.

The reason you don’t see that great of a difference is probably because you don’t know anything about the big bang.

flutherother's avatar

If anyone knows anything about the origins of the Big Bang they are keeping it to themselves. The laws of nature, including general relativity, break down in the Big Bang so it is difficult to understand scientifically. We may be running up against the limits of what science can explain.

Qingu's avatar

@flutherother, actually numerous books have been written about the big bang, including most famously “A Brief History of Time,” but also many more recent books about cosmology. String theory is one attempt to tie together what we know about the big bang, “From Infinity to Here,” a book I read recently, deals with the big bang in terms of entropy.

Maybe you should try to learn something about a subject before declaring that any knowledge about that subject cannot exist?

flutherother's avatar

Lots of books have been written about God as well.

ragingloli's avatar

And none of them have any evidence to support themselves, unlike the Big Bang..

flutherother's avatar

I have nothing against God but the people who tend to believe in Him are another matter. I don’t rule God out as an explanation for the Big Bang simply because we don’t know one way or the other. Science has been very successful at explaining all sorts of things but I suspect it has its limits. I don’t have complete faith in God or in science and so I keep an open mind.

ucme's avatar

When it thunders gawd is moving his furniture around, I was told this by Burt, the toothless village idiot, so it’s just gotta be true.

mazingerz88's avatar

@ragingloli The Bible is not evidence?! Egad! Lol. And all explanations about why the Big Bang happened, aren’t they all merely theoretical in the end? I personally have no idea if the ultimate Truth about stars and our being here is knowable : )

@ucme Moving furniture? More like bowling isn’t it?

ucme's avatar

@mazingerz88 That’s what granny used to say, so i’m sticking with it.

Ron_C's avatar

The idea that god saw the singularity and decided to expand it is an acceptable view of god. Once the big bang occurred, “god” went off to do other things. The idea that there is a god involved in your personal life is absurd and egocentric.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther