Best evidence for Creation

You have to make clear how your creatio-ex-materia is not a science of good and evil. I don't see how you can avoid it, with your proof of God. The proof seems to inevitably lead to hard scientific knowledge of good and evil, which is forbidden knowledge.There seems to be little point in objecting to (social) darwinism, replacing it with a theory which also posits a science of good and evil.

The most clear proof for a creator is the creation. Since the world exists, it had to have been created. The difference between creationists and atheists is really whether the creator of the world was the world itself, or if there is another being responcible for the world's existence. Creationists would say that it is not possible for something physical to create itself. Atheists will say that since the concept of G-d is proven to be not comprehendable to humans, the world must have created itself. Also, even if an atheist will believe that the world is so great that it can actually create itself, and force itself into existence, he will not be able to agree that this world will have a will, and actually command people how to live their lives. This is my view of things as a creationist.

I think Brian was asking for proof of creation, not the creator.

quote:

---

Since the world exists, it had to have been created.
  —open mind

---

is hardly a logical answer to this. Also, I don't see how you extrapulate,

quote:

---

this world will have a will, and actually command people how to live their lives
  —open mind

---

from the belief that gravity caused the formation of the earth. Why would one imply the other?Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

all the fact that the world exists is that it exists. There is no evidence that it was created. If it was created, the creator was an absolute idiot or a practical joker based on the physic laws.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since the creator exists he/she/it had to have been created.

Not if this creator was absolutely simple.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

The evidence for the Big Bang is one bit of evidence that the universe was created. The only question is: What caused the Big Bang? The stuff itself (stuff = matter, energy, force, space, time or all of the above), or something else.

Why should 'simple' or 'complex' matter? How can a 'creator' make something so much more complex than itself?

How is not the question. The point is that it has happened. The universe was simple at one point in time, namely the very beginning of time. The idea of simple is that it does not have to be created. By definition it is the simplest thing in existence and it requires no creating. Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

Simple?Surely it is simpler to assume the creation of that which we know exists (i.e. the universe) without invoking extra pre-creation entities which are themselve unexplained and wholly unevidenced. Why explain that which we know exists in terms of that which we have no reason to believe exists.That is simplicity.

quote:

---

The idea of simple is that it does not have to be created.

---

That logic is complete nonsense.Simplicity does not mean no creator. I bought a simple pencil. Does that mean it just appeared from nothing? H20 is a simple molecule. Does that mean it wasn't created from the joining of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms?Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

I don't think you get to evade it that easily. That may be your opinion on the matter but, it certainly isn't evidence for simple requiring no creator. If God created our universe, then he did so by creating those simple forces that were present at the moment of the BB, and therefore God would also be responsable for creating something simple.If God is the creator, He created the most complex, AND the most simple, therefore even the most simplest of things that exist in our universe would require a creator. If God is, as you say simple, He too requires a creator that created the simple God.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I think the best evidence for intelligent design or creationism is that it can be observed and has been observed for centuries.We see creation all around us every day: intelligent agents arrange different objects for a specific purpose. People created the wheel, the motor, the computer. Even animals are observed creating nests and tunnel systems. So the theory that complex systems are the product of purposeful design by an intelligent agent is grounded in observable arguments.Evolution, on the other hand has never been observed in a way that could account for life. Sure we see changing features within species but nobody has ever observed the evolution of random proteins into a living cell or the evolution of one species to another.Therefore, if science is based on observable evidence, then creation is a better scientific theory than Darwinian evolution, no?To frame my post I would like to add I am not religious. I do not believe in the bible, hell or heaven. But I am fascinated by the evolution vs creation debateEdited by Kevin123, : No reason given.

You need to study the subject a bit more. You are making some common errors.The theory of evolution deals with changes in the genome since life began, by whatever means. Origins is studied by the fledgling field of abiogenesis, which has several competing hypotheses, but no generally accepted theory yet.Creation is not a scientific theory, but rather a religious belief developed from scripture and revelation, etc. The theory of evolution relies on evidence and the scientific method. Contrary to your assertion that the two are both scientific theories, they are in fact opposites.Welcome, by the way. Stick around, read some of the older and ongoing threads and have some fun.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That complex systems can be the product of purposeful design by an intelligent agent is established fact. Snow flakes show that "are" is unachievable.

---

KindlyWhen I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?