Don't really want to type a lot. I will just cite the following, then, bible verses.
"The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott M. Huse. That's all you need.
John 1:1-3 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Revelations 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
....We don't have proof when they themselves aren't Christians. What do evolutionists say to how the universe began. If there was nothing, not energy, no non living chemicals, NOTHING, where did the universe come from? Kind of silly. Sound like the person who asked this question just wanted to make some people mad.
These three are the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument.
The Cosmological Argument states simply that everything that is caused has a beginning. The universe had a beginning, so it had a cause. That cause was God, as we need an uncaused causer in order to avoid the need for yet another cause. An eternal God does not need a cause, because God didn't have a beginning.
The "who made God" argument should be reserved for children.
The Teleological Argument: The chances of life existing are, for all intents and purposes, zero, if you believe life came from a chance process.
We live in a "just-so" universe, what some call the "Goldilocks zone," where our environment is perfect for life. The chances of that happening randomly are less than 1 in (imagine this whole page covered in zeros). Believing in that kind of luck takes a lot of faith.
The Moral Argument: Our thirst for meaning, mankind's longing for God, and the universal presence of a conscience testify to a Creator. Evolution and Atheism provide no explanation for the fact that we all frown upon cowardice, rape, murder, etc.. There is something that separates us from the animals, and Christians would call it the soul.
We're arguing about philosophy!!! Do you see your gerbil doing that?!
By the way, I'd love to debate this with someone civil and intelligent.
The Big Bang Theory is not true. It says in a nutshell that first there was nothing and then it blew up and then that became the universe. That is simply not possible logically or scientifically. The only explanation can be is that there is a God, who created this universe.
1. Carbon Dating doesn't actually date fossils. It dates the layer that the rock is found in. Though Carbon Dating is only useful after a certain age, let's just assume for a second that the rocks are actually billions of years old. That would mean nothing, really, as the Bible says that the Earth was around in some form for an unspecified amount of time before Creation.
2. It is highly likely that there is in fact enough water to cover the entire Earth.
3. Transitions from one biological structure to another often requires many more changes to cause that one chance to not ruin everything.
4. The Universe has the correct conditions to make life possible. Unless you can prove multiverses, the Universe cannot "try again" until it gets the right conditions for life, because the Universe is only created once.
And on and on...
I will give my explanation in the comments. I ran out of room so cut and pasted. Now I need to fill in some space so I am going to talk for no particular good reason and with no good purpose until I have enough words to count....Made it :)
Some transcendent entity must exist for there to be matter, energy, and time in the first place- something outside the realm of logic and order that it has created. It is silly to assume to logic alone must exist when its existence in the first place is unexplained. The problem of consciousness, that it cannot be measured or attributed to any bodily organ, seems to suggest transcendent concepts that fall outside the realm of science. We know (or assume) at least that something must exist-that knowledge alone is cause to disprove science, i.e. it refutes it based on the principle that nothing can come out of nothing.
And, assuming that I'm correct in saying that evolution occurs purely out of necessity, why, therefore, are there complex organisms? Please feel free to enlighten me as to why this is. My biology teacher skimmed over the question.
Creationism, at its roots, is the belief that God created the universe as it is. The expansion of the universe tells us that the universe started at a single point, the point of the Big Bang. Since before the big bang, there was nothing; literally nothing. No vacuum even exsisted. Then, all of a sudden, all this matter appeared and started expanding. Since we know that something cannot come from nothing, some other force outside our universe had to act to start our universe. Even if it was a multiverse or a "Bouncing Universe", both of those entities had to have a beginning as well. Also, the odds of these theories being true is next to nothing. No renowned Physicists truly believe these ideas, and there is no scientific evidence for them as well. Also, speaking of odds, the odds of our universe being able to support stars, and our planet are so ASTRONOMICALLY low that no one could really take them seriously. If all of the zeros of the odds were written in twelve point font, they would fill most of the Milky Way Galaxy. The incredibly low odds tells us that logically, the most likely explanation is an all powerful being acted upon us and placed life on our planet.
It is impossible to back up an idea or belief that is rooted entirely in religion. In the past, the idea that God created everything was the "scientific" reason for the way the world was the way it was. Now, modern science has disproved this idea and provided the explanation of evolution and provided evidence to support this explanation. Evolution is not necessarily the correct explanation (as science is always changing) but modern science has uncovered real evidence to support the theory of evolution.
What scientific evidence could ever lead to anything in the bible? The bible was written as a religious or spiritual book and should not contain any science since modern science that we know didn't come in until around the time of Issac Newton and Galileo. It is impossible to have any scientific accuracies or statements in the bible since modern science was not made back then.
It's pretty much that simple. They do not.
In other news there was a cute little girl the other day around here who got bitten by a squirrel with rabies. She is fine if you were wondering but it is one of the strangest happenstances to occur around here in a while.
Creationism is lacking in scientific proof that shows its assertions to be correct. The Bible is a book filled with logical impossibilities and as such cannot itself be taken as proof for creationism. To cite the bible as scientific evidence for anything is ridiculous because it requires faith rather than scientific evidence to be believable. Thus creationism is founded on faith as opposed to evidence.
How can you take the words of a book literally which has been edited, revised innumerable times over a period of 2000 years?? The book is filled with metaphors ans cannot be taken literally. If you have one evidence that proves your case other than 'its in the book' bring it to us and we will take it.
I have yet to see any evidence for creation. Something is not going to just come from nothing which is exactly what creating is supposed to entail. Creation means ex nihilo otherwise it isnt really creating but rather some rearranging of the basic building blocks. When conservation says nothing can be created or destroyed there is no need for a creator. A heat death of the universe isn't anything gettting destroyed either.
I was hoping for a more substantial argument. I thought there might be something more than "we don't know what happened so there must be a god" argument. Not being able to explain the cause of something does not prove the existence of a deity. And using the bible is a useless argument tool.
To believe in creationism is to suspend scientific evidence, the very explanation of supernaturalism for the world makes it impossible to study using science (which is the study of the natural world). Study the supernatural through natural means is idiotic. There are scraps of misinterpreted information flung around to support creationism, but against the mountain, avalanche, tsunami (pick any large unstoppable thing) of scientific data and evidence that proves everything creationist believe (young earth creationist) and most of what old earth creationist, is wrong there is no debate.
The only evidence they really present is pointing at the bible, which most of the time is misconstrued to conform to their belief. Their few scientific arguments all show a tentative at best understanding of science. Most of them claim the bible is inerrant, which just shows that they believe the bible more than they know about it. It's nonsense, and the people who believe it are either charlatans or have been duped into an indefensible belief by one.
I have a lot of friends and family that are christians, but all of them are educated enough to know this concept is ridiculous. It's depressing to see how many people actually believe this.
Creationists who believe the world is only 6-10,000 years old cherry pick their science and will believe in microwave ovens but not radiometric dating and adhere so stringently to words of an ancient text that they'd rather believe the book rather than observational science. If this is a debate about the beginnings of the big bang then the answer is still no as before and during the big bang the laws of physics and time don't really exist in a recognisable state, the heat cooling and expansion that occurs afterwards are pretty well covered but not really before. So no real observable scientific evidence exists YET. Anything else is conjecture and philosophical theorising.