Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory?

Short Answer

No.

The various creation myths throughout the world are merely products of their respective cultures from primitive eras.

There is no more evidence in favor of Creation Theory than there is in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Technically, it's not even a theory, except in the vernacular sense. A Theory is a hypothesis that explains observations and facts, and stands up to rigorous attempts at falsification. A Theory also makes predictions that can be tested experimentally. Creation "Theory" makes no such predictions and has no observations to its credit.

Support for "Biblical" Creation

The topic of Biblical creation has been hotly debated among scientific circles.

The primary source of evidence backing up Biblical creation is in the realm of Creation Science. One newcomer theory in this area is the theory of Intelligent Design. Despite opinions from members of the scientific community that cannot accept this theory, Intelligent Design is rooted firmly in science, though many religious individuals have chosen to support this theory. Intelligent Design, in short, says that many of Earth's complex systems had to have been formed immediately, not gradually as evolution demands. Intelligent Design, at its foundation, suggests that some creative intelligence must have formed many of these systems by design, rather than by random chance.

See the Related Links "Wikipedia: Intelligent Design," "Wikipedia: Creation Science," "Answers in Genesis," and "Institute for Creation Research" for more information on Intelligent Design and ongoing research that helps support the theory of non-evolutionary creation.

Answer

None and nothing can be found, because what was told in Genesis, is contradictory to the natural order that we know today..

Example; The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

Another answer

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support creation theory. Not one bit. There are mounds of data supporting Evolution as it is expressed in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES). It's bulletproof from the point of view that life has been on the planet for millions of years and that it has changed, has evolved, over time. But MES cannot shed any light on the genesis of life. Nothing. So MES cannot disprove Creation. Enter, God.

God is omnipotent. He is able to use any means to effect His plan. He created earth and sparked life upon it. How did He do this? He didn't say. It's not provable, but it doesn't matter. Believers need no proof of this, of God creating life. The faith of the, um, Faithful, bridges a lack of scientific understanding. That's the nature of faith. That's what faith is for. Oh, and God doesn't feel the need to prove He is responsible for creation. He said He was, and that's good enough. Still need proof? Enter creation science.

Creation science is an oxymoron. Nothing could be clearer. If creation science had any facts that would support it, then it wouldn't need to be creation science and it could parade around as "regular science" like, say, gravity. But, alas, there isn't a single scientific fact that the creationists can pull up to support the science of creation . Oh, and Intelligent Design? The "support" for creation science as suggested? Intelligent Design (ID) proffers the idea that some things, some biological structures, are so complex that they could not have arisen spontaneously or could have evolved and, therefore, must have been "created whole" to exist. They arose as the result of "intelligent design" and, therefore, as the result of the work of an "intelligent designer" (who is God). That "created whole" thing is the idea of "irreducible complexity".

The one example of irreducible complexity (their "best" example) pushed so hard by the pseudo-scientists in a recent Federal Court case was recently shown to have precursor structures in similar organisms. Creation science, propped up by ID and irreducible complexity, is, in truth, a social and political tool that some are using in an attempt to get the idea of creation offered as an alternative to evolution in public school. They crashed and burned in court after a few real scientists showed up and punched holes large enough to drive a truck through in their presentation. Christians deceived themselves and then proceeded to attempt to deceive others. But amid all this bad news is good news.

God isn't worried about being disproved. He exists. He is. A Believer believes out of faith. He has no worries. His faith allows him to travel where science cannot. Is there any evidence that backs up creation theory? Nothing scientific. But that doesn't faze a Believer. He doesn't need proof from a scientist that God created life on earth. He has faith in God and in His plan. And that is sufficient.

Answer

Initially, of course, there was nothing known about creation except the two separate accounts in Genesis. As yet, there was no Creation Theory and no known evidence to support it. The Theory of Evolution changed all that, and "Creationism" was developed, as a response, by a minority of Christians. To be more widely accepted, Creationism had to have more than faith to support it, so Creationism evolved, with a new name "Creation Science" to suggest that it was now a science. There was still no evidence to positively support Creationism, but one aim of its advocates was to dispute the claims of scientists who support evolution. Another aim of Creationists was to have "Creation Science" taught in U.S. schools as a serious subject alongside evolution, but the courts continued to maintain that it was a topic of religion, not science. The stance of the courts showed a belief that Creationism had no objective evidence to support it. In 1999, the "Wedge Document" prepared by the creationist Discovery Institute was leaked to the Internet, where it is displayed on the following sites: Wedge Strategy and The Wedge Documents. After initially denying it, the Institute confirmed the document's authenticity.

Answer

Just like scientists believe in an atom ( that no one has ever seen ) Christians believe in God.

Answer

How about the stars? Trap Door Spider? Migrating Birds? Fish that swim to precise location and have never been there before? Honey Bees?

How about your eyes? Which is more complicated - your house or your brain? Did nobody build your house? Was there a designer? Of course. Evidence of a designer is all around us.

Answer

With due respect, there is a saying in my country that goes "The worst blind man is the one that does not want to see". So, if you are looking for evidence, open wide your eyes. but more important, open your mind and your heart.

First answer by Joe Sewell. Last edit by Lodivar. Contributor trust: 1 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 48 [recommend question]

Can you answer other questions about creation?