NationStates Jolt Archive

Theology isn't one of my best subjects so I was just wondering if somebody could help me better understand the science of God.
The reason God doesn't have a creator and has enough time on his hands to listen to everyones prayars is that he exists out of time completely. In other words, God is eternity. If God doesn't experience time, how can God do something in six days then rest for a day?

He doesn't have to do it that way. He could have done it in an instant, but for some odd reason, He decided to do it that way.

Theology isn't one of my best subjects so I was just wondering if somebody could help me better understand the science of God.
The reason God doesn't have a creator and has enough time on his hands to listen to everyones prayars is that he exists out of time completely. In other words, God is eternity. If God doesn't experience time, how can God do something in six days then rest for a day?

While it isn't actually my faith, I did go to an anglican school so I know a bit about it. The six days thing shouldn't really be interpreted literally, thinks of each day more as each stage of creation not actually a 24 hour, daytime/night time, standard issue day.

He doesn't have to do it that way. He could have done it in an instant, but for some odd reason, He decided to do it that way.

If something happens in an instant it happens very quickly after something else. This implies the existence of time. God can not do something in an instant.

He doesn't have to do it that way. He could have done it in an instant, but for some odd reason, He decided to do it that way.
Or maybe he dident and humans made up the story to explain what they could not understand

While it isn't actually my faith, I did go to an anglican school so I know a bit about it. The six days thing shouldn't really be interpreted literally, thinks of each day more as each stage of creation not actually a 24 hour, daytime/night time, standard issue day.

But if this is so doesn't it hint towards evolutionism.

Theology isn't one of my best subjects so I was just wondering if somebody could help me better understand the science of God.
The reason God doesn't have a creator and has enough time on his hands to listen to everyones prayars is that he exists out of time completely. In other words, God is eternity. If God doesn't experience time, how can God do something in six days then rest for a day?

i dont think anyone really can know for definite but i'll try to help with my opinion.

If you think of it as six human day, as in He created the world in 6 human days and didn't do anything on the 7th human day

Interesting question, i've never thought of it before

The whole question is moot because it contains within it a huge assumption. That God exists outside of time. The question is not even valid if this assumption is inaccurate.

But if this is so doesn't it hint towards evolutionism.
I think you're grasping at straws there. I mean ofcourse I believe in evolution and think creationism is a total load of bullplop but I don't see how the verse hints towards it is all. I also believe that God and evolution can co-exist, in theory.

The reason God doesn't have a creator and has enough time on his hands to listen to everyones prayars is that he exists out of time completely.
Even though I'm not Christian, I don't think your logic here really makes sense. How can you say that the reason God doesn't have a creator is that he "exists out of time completely?" If he is omnipotent, he can surely do whatever he wants, and he can listen to six billion prayers in one millisecond if he wants.

In other words, God is eternity. If God doesn't experience time
Maybe God experiences all time.

But if this is so doesn't it hint towards evolutionism.

yes, yes it does... atleast i think it does

The whole question is moot because it contains within it a huge assumption. That God exists outside of time. The question is not even valid if this assumption is inaccurate.

Well if you're assuming God exists as is said in the Bible. It would therefore be assumed that God can exist wherever he chooses, within time or seperate from it. It is still a fairly pointless discussion though.

But if this is so doesn't it hint towards evolutionism.
Why would it hint toward evolution? If a "day" in that passage of the Bible = 100 million years, then God can create from scratch 1 species a year for all 100 million years to fully populate the earth with various species. (Which I think is ridiculous, because I believe in evolution) Besides, the writers of the Bible did not know what evolution was, so they could not have possibly intentionally "hinted" toward evolution in their writings.

Well if you're assuming God exists as is said in the Bible. It would therefore be assumed that God can exist wherever he chooses, within time or seperate from it. It is still a fairly pointless discussion though.

no, it would not be assumed. why would you think it is?

no, it would not be assumed. why would you think it is?
God is supposed to be all powerful. Why would he not have power over time as well?

God is supposed to be all powerful. Why would he not have power over time as well?

Show me where it says he is all powerful.

Show me where it says he is all powerful.
In the apostles creed "all powerfull and everliving god" lol

In the apostles creed "all powerfull and everliving god" lol

Thats a catholic tradition, not a biblical statement. Catholicism does not represent all of christianity.

Show me where it says he is all powerful.

The Bible :P

I'm not gonna go find a specific verse, but the words 'All mighty' are thrown around enough in there.

The Bible :P

I'm not gonna go find a specific verse, but the words 'All mighty' are thrown around enough in there.

too bad you cant prove it huh?

Thats a catholic tradition, not a biblical statement. Catholicism does not represent all of christianity.
I know it was just the first thing that came to mind :p

Even though I'm not Christian, I don't think your logic here really makes sense. How can you say that the reason God doesn't have a creator is that he "exists out of time completely?" If he is omnipotent, he can surely do whatever he wants, and he can listen to six billion prayers in one millisecond if he wants.


Maybe God experiences all time.

The point is that God experiences all time. I don't see what's wrong with my logic. If an atheist says: "well if God created us then who created God".
Then the christian will says: "No one created God. God has always existed and always will".

Therefore the reason that he has no creator is that he has always existed and never was created. God is Eternity.

too bad you cant prove it huh?

Revelation 1:8 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Happy now?

The point is that God experiences all time. I don't see what's wrong with my logic. If an atheist says: "well if God created us then who created God".
Then the christian will say: "No one created God. God has always existed and always will".

Therefore thew reason that he has no creator is that he has always existed and never was created. God is Eternity.

But how does that translate into existing outside of time? It only translates into existing eternally, not into existing outside of time. The biblical concept of the human being is eternal too and nobody pretends that we exist outside of time just because our souls will never die.

Revelation 1:8 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Happy now?

You just showed he has always existed and will always exist. How does that translate into being all powerful or being able to travel through time or existing outside of time? It does not, it says only that he has always existed and will always exist. Almighty does not mean able to do all things, it means able to defeat anything and anyone. Which is correct, no one can defeat God. But nowhere does it say he can travel through time.

You just showed he has always existed and will always exist. How does that translate into being all powerful or being able to travel through time or existing outside of time? It does not, it says only that he has always existed and will always exist. Almighty does not mean able to do all things,
Yes it does.

almighty
adj : having unlimited power [syn: all-powerful, omnipotent]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=almighty
it means able to defeat anything and anyone. Which is correct, no one can defeat God. But nowhere does it say he can travel through time.
Almighty means having absolute power (over stuff). Liek the power to travel through time.

I feel like I'm on pot right now.

The whole question is moot because it contains within it a huge assumption. That God exists outside of time. The question is not even valid if this assumption is inaccurate.

As you should know Time and Space exist on the same continuum. If something exists in space it also exists in time, and vice versa. If God were to exist inside of time he would also exist in space. The idea of God floating around the outer limits are so absurd that it is only logical to say that God exists out of time. It is therefore not an assumption to say that God exists out of time.

You just showed he has always existed and will always exist. How does that translate into being all powerful or being able to travel through time or existing outside of time? It does not, it says only that he has always existed and will always exist. Almighty does not mean able to do all things, it means able to defeat anything and anyone. Which is correct, no one can defeat God. But nowhere does it say he can travel through time.

Actually it does -

al·might·y (ôl-mī'tē)
adj.
1. Having absolute power; all-powerful.
2. Informal. Great; extreme: an almighty din.

But how does that translate into existing outside of time? It only translates into existing eternally, not into existing outside of time. The biblical concept of the human being is eternal too and nobody pretends that we exist outside of time just because our souls will never die.

existing eternally is exactly the same as existing outside of time. The biblical concept of the human being is that we are made of two parts. A body and a soul. The soul exitst out of time the body doesn't.

I still don't understand why creationism/intelligent design is absolutely incompatible with the idea of evolution or vice-versa. I do not see the ideas as completely and mutually exclusive. I have no conflicts in believing that both did and do occur.

The point is that God experiences all time. I don't see what's wrong with my logic. If an atheist says: "well if God created us then who created God".
Then the christian will says: "No one created God. God has always existed and always will".

Therefore the reason that he has no creator is that he has always existed and never was created. God is Eternity.
God is eternity doesn't mean "God exists outside of time,".

I still don't understand why creationism/intelligent design is absolutely incompatible with the idea of evolution or vice-versa. I do not see the ideas as completely and mutually exclusive. I have no conflicts in believing that both did and do occur.
Creationism in its pure form means DIRECTLY out of the bible
(Meaning EXACTLY 6 human days about 6k years ago) so that has a tendancy to conflict

But not nessisarily ID

I still don't understand why creationism/intelligent design is absolutely incompatible with the idea of evolution or vice-versa. I do not see the ideas as completely and mutually exclusive. I have no conflicts in believing that both did and do occur.

Intelligent design is OK. God could have made everything and also made it so they evolve and adapt over time. It would be a smart idea and God would be smart right?

Creationism however, believes the Earth to be only about 6,000 years old. Which 1. Is scientifically inaccurate and 2. Not long enough of a time for evolution to be effective or have shown enough significant signs of it's existence to be a plausable theory.

As you should know Time and Space exist on the same continuum. If something exists in space it also exists in time, and vice versa. If God were to exist inside of time he would also exist in space. The idea of God floating around the outer limits are so absurd
Why is it absurd? Once he came down to earth as Jesus, he can surely do whatever the fuck he wants, including float aroundthe 'outer limits.'
that it is only logical to say that God exists out of time. It is therefore not an assumption to say that God exists out of time.
Of course, that is only if you assume God exists at all, which can't be proven.

I still don't understand why creationism/intelligent design is absolutely incompatible with the idea of evolution or vice-versa. I do not see the ideas as completely and mutually exclusive. I have no conflicts in believing that both did and do occur.

They are completely and mutually exclusive. They can not both be right. Evolution claims that higher forms of life evolve from lower forms of life over a long period of time. Creationism claims that the world was created exactly like it says in the first three chapters of Genesis. In six days and one of rest. Evolution says that human life came because of millions of years of evolution. Creationism says that Adam and Eve were created less than a week after everything else.
They contradict so you cant believe both.

They are completely and mutually exclusive. They can not both be right. Evolution claims that higher forms of life evolve from lower forms of life over a long period of time. Creationism claims that the world was created exactly like it says in the first three chapters of Genesis. In six days and one of rest. Evolution says that human life came because of millions of years of evolution. Creationism says that Adam and Eve were created less than a week after everything else.
They contradict so you cant believe both.
Creation and evolution are not contradictory at all. Christian biblical creationism may claim that God created Adam and Eve in one fell swoop but you can also say God created bacteria and such, and then he left them alone to evolve into higher forms life. Creationism can refer to a whole range of ideas, from Christian Creationism to Hindu Creationism to this creation-evolution hybrid. Evolutionism is also a diverse philosophy, there are various scientists with different and mutually exclusive opinions about how exactly the mechanics of evolution work.

Why is it absurd? Once he came down to earth as Jesus, he can surely do whatever the fuck he wants, including float aroundthe 'outer limits.'

Of course, that is only if you assume God exists at all, which can't be proven.

Just to get one thing straight. I didn't start this thread to debate the existance of God. I started it assuming that God exists and with the intention of coming to a conclusion on the matter of Creationism vs. Evolutionism. I may have been a little optimistic but that's my problem.

And if everything is going to come down to God's omnipotence then this whole idea is a wastes of time. If we are going to argue about something can we please use logic.

Creation and evolution are not contradictory at all. Christian biblical creationism may claim that God created Adam and Eve in one fell swoop but you can also say God created bacteria and such, and then he left them alone to evolve into higher forms life. Creationism can refer to a whole range of ideas, from Christian Creationism to Hindu Creationism to this creation-evolution hybrid. Evolutionism is also a diverse philosophy, there are various scientists with different and mutually exclusive opinions about how exactly the mechanics evolution work.
No we are taking the LITTERAL deffinition

Creation can mean a plethora of different things
CREATIONISM means a DIRECT following of genisis

(if you dont believe me look up the deffinition on dictionary.com)

There is a difference you are alluding more to ID then creationism

OK, if a belief in creationism means a belief that the world and all life was created in 6, tweny-four hour days about 6-7,000 years ago, then yeah, it is incompatible with evolutionary theory. However, ID still remains as compatible and not necessarily mutually exclusive as so many seem to argue/claim.

Creationism however, believes the Earth to be only about 6,000 years old. Which 1. Is scientifically inaccurate...

Can you cite a source or give evidence as to the scientific inaccuracy of the young-earth theory?

Just to get one thing straight. I didn't start this thread to debate the existance of God. I started it assuming that God exists and with the intention of coming to a conclusion on the matter of Creationism vs. Evolutionism. I may have been a little optimistic but that's my problem.

And if everything is going to come down to God's omnipotence then this whole idea is a wastes of time. If we are going to argue about something can we please use logic.
If you start with the assumption that the Bible is true and the Christian God exists, then it is completely logical to say God is omnipotent, and can do whatever he wants.

OK, if a belief in creationism means a belief that the world and all life was created in 6, tweny-four hour days about 6-7,000 years ago, then yeah, it is incompatible with evolutionary theory. However, ID still remains as compatible and not necessarily mutually exclusive as so many seem to argue/claim.
Abosolutly
There is always the possibility
And taking a minimalist approach (he just setoff the big bang) you really can not disprove the idea
being god can essentialy (and has to ) reside outside of the universe (having created it and all) the idea is un-testable and un falcifyable (therefore one reason it can not be a SCIENTIFIC theory)

Creation and evolution are not contradictory at all. Christian biblical creationism may claim that God created Adam and Eve in one fell swoop but you can also say God created bacteria and such, and then he left them alone to evolve into higher forms life. Creationism can refer to a whole range of ideas, from Christian Creationism to Hindu Creationism to this creation-evolution hybrid. Evolutionism is also a diverse philosophy, there are various scientists with different and mutually exclusive opinions about how exactly the mechanics of evolution work.

When I say Creationism I don't mean all of these new quasi-creationist ideas. I mean the belief that the universe was created in exactly the literal sense interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. I don't care about 6 days being equal top 1 million years or any hybrids of evolution and creationism. What I am trying to get to here is the conclusion that raw creationism is wrong.

No we are taking the LITTERAL deffinition

Creation can mean a plethora of different things
CREATIONISM means a DIRECT following of genisis

(if you dont believe me look up the deffinition on dictionary.com)
Here I think dictionary.com doesn't grasp all the connotations of the word.
According to the Oxford Enligsh Dictionary, creationism is "A system or theory of creation" not necessarily in Genesis.

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50053529?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=creationism&first=1&max_to_show=10

There is a difference you are alluding more to ID then creationism
The original discussion was about ID too ...

I still don't understand why creationism/intelligent design is absolutely incompatible with the idea of evolution or vice-versa. I do not see the ideas as completely and mutually exclusive. I have no conflicts in believing that both did and do occur.

Here I think dictionary.com doesn't grasp all the connotations of the word.
According to the Oxford Enligsh Dictionary, creationism is "A system or theory of creation" not necessarily in Genesis.

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50053529?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=creationism&first=1&max_to_show=10


The original discussion was about ID too ...
And webster
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=creationism&x=0&y=0
argues with that (well "usualy genisis")
Such is life

When I say Creationism I don't mean all of these new quasi-creationist ideas. I mean the belief that the universe was created in exactly the literal sense interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. I don't care about 6 days being equal top 1 million years or any hybrids of evolution and creationism. What I am trying to get to here is the conclusion that raw creationism is wrong.
Alright, it's just a misunderstanding about semantics. I do agree with your conclusion, although I don't agree with the type of logic you're using to reach the conclusion (time space continuum and what not)

Can you cite a source or give evidence as to the scientific inaccuracy of the young-earth theory?

Off the top of my head, no I can't. Well except for them huge fucking dinosaur bones in the museum.

Alright, it's just a misunderstanding about semantics. I do agree with your conclusion, although I don't agree with the type of logic you're using to reach the conclusion (time space continuum and what not)

Thank You. That's all I wanted to hear.

OK, if a belief in creationism means a belief that the world and all life was created in 6, tweny-four hour days about 6-7,000 years ago, then yeah, it is incompatible with evolutionary theory. However, ID still remains as compatible and not necessarily mutually exclusive as so many seem to argue/claim.

ID remains as a useless theory that tells us nothing. All crediting a 'creator' does is put the name 'God' on the Supreme Cause, but since it says nothing about how this being operates or what his / her / their mechanisms are it adds nothing to the ability of the theory to generate predictions.

Therefore, since there is no reason to presuppose the Supreme Cause is intelligent, ID theory is not scientific. No 'theory' that appeals to an inscrutable being is scientific because the inscrutable being is impossible to predict or even detect, and therefore prevents the 'theory' from having any useful applications.

Further, there is a large volume of evidence in biology that if there is a designer at work rather than semi-random natural forces in creating the features we see in nature, he / she / it is not a particularly intelligent one. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html) for examples.

Can you cite a source or give evidence as to the scientific inaccuracy of the young-earth theory?

The entire sciences of astrophysics, chemistry, palentology, biology...? Further, the burden of proof is on YECs to prove their theory [which was regarded as preposterous hundreds of years before Darwin's day] is sound, not on science to disprove it. For links, check out:

http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-1.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html

One might also note that the staggering scientific inaccuracies in the Bible [such as Gen 11:4 where God worries a tower can reach him even though we've shot rockets into space and not found him, Joshua 10:12-13 where God makes the sun stand still in the sky even though this would be impossible unless the sun orbited the Earth, Matt 4:8 where Jesus can see 'All the kingdoms of the world' from the top of a mountain implying the world is flat, and so on] don't exactly make it a good source of scientific data.

Also, the accompanying idea that Noah, with no shipbuilding skill at all, could somehow build a 480ft ship from only wood is just...Well...Weird.

Abosolutly
There is always the possibility
And taking a minimalist approach (he just setoff the big bang) you really can not disprove the idea
being god can essentialy (and has to ) reside outside of the universe (having created it and all) the idea is un-testable and un falcifyable (therefore one reason it can not be a SCIENTIFIC theory)

Just because it cannot be tested and undeniably proven or disproven, doesn't mean it is not the truth. Science and logic are not concerned with truth per se but with conclusions that are undeniable based on their premises. Example:

Major Premise: All men have purple skin
Minor Premise: Mauiwowee is a man
Conclusion: Mauiwowee has purple skin

Logically infallible, correct and the conclusion cannot be refuted from a logical standpoint. However, it is not true as there is an error in the major premise. The scientific method provides a manner in which the error in the major premise can be established. However,

Major Premise: The universe and all life in it came into being without assistance.
Minor Premise: Mauiwowee exists in the universe
Conclusion: Mauiwowee came into being without assistance from anywhere

Logically infalliable, correct and unasailable in it's logical conclusion. The problem is that the major premise may not be true, then again it may be, no one can say for sure. The scientific method is useless since it can never establish the fallibility or infallibility of the major premise. Logically the argument is correct, but it may not be true or "valid" since, due to the failing of the scientific method the following is equally valid.

Major Premise: The universe and all life in it was created by an omnipresent, supernatural being (i.e. "God")
Minor Premise: Mauiwowee is a life in the universe
Conclusion: Mauiwowee was created by an omnipresent, supernatural being (i.e. "God")

Logically, just as good an argument as the preceeding one, but also, again, unproveable by the scientific method.

Since neither argument can be established to have a flaw in their major premise by the scientific method, both arguments are equally valid and logically correct and they exist side-by-side and are not mutually exclusive from a "truth" standpoint. It is a paradox of universal proportion and one that makes people "crazy."

If you've studied chemistry, you should be aware of the "particle" vs. the "wave" theory of electrons. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time from a mathematical, scientific method standpoint. The scientific method proves electrons exist, but the validity of their existence as waves or particles cannot be established so both theories are taught, explained and examined. Likewise, scientific methodology establishes the universe exists, but cannot establish the validity of ID or evolution, so both ideas should be taught, explained and examined.

Damn, I hope that made sense.

Allow me to state my opinion

God created everything by using applicable scientific means and following scientific laws such as astrophysics, biology, chemistry etc.
He followed the scientific timeline (~15 billion years)
He showed the author(s) of the Bible this (Assuming the Bible is correct)
They fell on their knees in incomphension, then wrote Genesis as a Creation for Dummies

Do not forget the Bible is 1800 years old. How the hell are guys from that time frame supposed to understand Quantum Physics when we struggle with it. They would have seen the universe spin into existence and said "In the beggining" etc.

Allow me to state my opinion

God created everything by using applicable scientific means and following scientific laws such as astrophysics, biology, chemistry etc.
He followed the scientific timeline (~15 billion years)
He showed the author(s) of the Bible this (Assuming the Bible is correct)
They fell on their knees in incomphension, then wrote Genesis as a Creation for Dummies

Do not forget the Bible is 1800 years old. How the hell are guys from that time frame supposed to understand Quantum Physics when we struggle with it. They would have seen the universe spin into existence and said "In the beggining" etc.

You know I think you may be onto something here!

Can you cite a source or give evidence as to the scientific inaccuracy of the young-earth theory?
I will if no one else has
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Creationism is a ludicrous concept. Anyone with half a braincell knows why. In 2005, if you still believe in creationism, you are a fucking moron and deserve zero respect.

Creationism is a ludicrous concept. Anyone with half a braincell knows why. In 2005, if you still believe in creationism, you are a fucking moron and deserve zero respect.

And in 2005 if you talk to people in this fashion, you're a fucking jerk who deserves zero respect. Especially since you can't prove they are wrong.

Theology isn't one of my best subjects so I was just wondering if somebody could help me better understand the science of God.
The reason God doesn't have a creator and has enough time on his hands to listen to everyones prayars is that he exists out of time completely. In other words, God is eternity. If God doesn't experience time, how can God do something in six days then rest for a day?
firstly, He chose to, He coulda done it anyway He wished, secondly the Bible is not always literal, God Himself says that a day could be as little as a few seconds or as long as a billion years, and third, that could very easilly be Him simply putting it into understandable language for people

Just to get one thing straight. I didn't start this thread to debate the existance of God. I started it assuming that God exists and with the intention of coming to a conclusion on the matter of Creationism vs. Evolutionism.


Well, that was something i didn't expect to ever hear you say, lol but if you're going to come to any sort of conclusion, you need to define what "evolutionism" means. You've told us what "Creationism" means but if only one side of the argument has a definition then the arguments not going to be particularly helpful...

Creationism is a ludicrous concept. Anyone with half a braincell knows why. In 2005, if you still believe in creationism, you are a fucking moron and deserve zero respect.

Why thank you for your compliment, i love you too :fluffle:

and uhh, do you have any proof for this statement or do you just like insulting people because you don't believe in anything and wish you did. And, is the only way to make yourself feel better about that to try and stop other people from believing anything either?

Well, that was something i didn't expect to ever hear you say, lol but if you're going to come to any sort of conclusion, you need to define what "evolutionism" means. You've told us what "Creationism" means but if only one side of the argument has a definition then the arguments not going to be particularly helpful...

"Evolutionism" is a derogatory term used by Creationists to describe those fields of science that go against their religious believes - i.e. archaeology, astrophysics, biology, geology and paleontology. Sometimes they also call this 'bad science' (in coontrast to the 'good science' which has offered them all the handy inventions that made their life easier). Creationists sometimes also claim that evolution would be unobservable therefore unscientific, which is again, nonsense.

In combination this proves that Creationists typically are very unfair towards science and that they hardly know what they exactly are talking about.

Can you cite a source or give evidence as to the scientific inaccuracy of the young-earth theory?
All methods of dating put the age of the Earth at about 4.56 billion years, ± 0.1%.

Can you cite a source or give evidence as to the scientific inaccuracy of the young-earth theory?

ROTF! That's hilarious! Too bad i didn't notice this any earlier. Young-Earth "theory" (even that is wrong, it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis) is absolutely unscientific since there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

In contrast let me briefly sum up evidence for the conventional scientific theory:
1) radiometric dating of rocks (uranium-lead/thorium-lead/rubidium-strontrium/potassium-argon, etc.)
2) paleomagnetism
3) ice cores, tree rings, corals, etc.
4) chronological order of fossils in strata
5) plate tectonics
6) restriction of contemporary plant and animal species to certain places
7) morphological evidence in lifeforms pointing at common ancestor
8) molecular evidence (DNA) pointing at common ancestor
9) coherence of many different methods

And now... evidence for Creation according to Genesis:
None. :D

PS: I recommend reading some textbooks...