Can someone give me an argument FOR creationism or ID?

I dont think there is an argument for ID, at least an answer that is in fact logical. since ID is based on Christian beliefs, it doesnt have REAL evidence in reality

If your looking for an argument to support either that is based in fact then you wont find any.

@ morporc "Kent Hovind is a great advocate for Creation Science. He has done many experiments to confirm the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible account of Creation."

Has he really? Did "Dr" Hovind record clear concise data, did "Dr" Hovind submit his findings for peer review so that his hypothesis could be validated? I'd love to see the evidence of any of the above happening. "Dr" Hovind is a convicted fraudster, a pathological liar without shame who peddles his unsubstantiated drivel to the uneducated, even Ken Ham of Answers in Magic finds Hovind an embarrassment. His doctorate was obtained form a unaccredited diploma mill, his dissertation reads as if were written by a 11 year and is rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Anyone who promotes his nonsense is either ignorant of the above or they are being dishonest not to mention being ignorant of science.

Doctor Kent Hovind has explained how dinosaurs could have co-existed with early man in Biblical times, and how the shield of Ice which is known to have enclosed the early post-Creation Earth would of led to long lifespans for Moses &c., as well as confiming that no rain fell before the Flood.

Kent Hovind is a great advocate for Creation Science. He has done many experiments to confirm the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible account of Creation.

you can not build a case with out facts. fact #1 the theory that life started in a primeval jungle when lightening accidentally struck a murky puddle of water and created an amoeba is flawed at best. fact #2 believing that that one cell developed into the millions of life forms we have today stretches the mind a little too much. fact #3 the fact that scientists have never been able to duplicate what happened by accident in that jungle casts further doubt on tthe evolution theory. but fact #4 is the real clincher. scientists now tell us that the DNA tape that programs our cells could not have evolved. it had to come into existence instantly. no tape--no life. it had to be created. there is no painting with out an artist---there is no design with out a designer, and there is no creation with out a creator.

That relies upon on what you advise. there is unquestionably no valid argument for the incorporation of or coaching of identity as technology. as some distance because of fact the final philosophical argument that identity places forward (it somewhat is to no longer say that they are convincing, basically that some are better than others), i assume the finest is, "As unlikely because of fact the universe's existence and the existence of existence looks, does not it extra possibly that somebody created those issues somewhat than they took place by means of organic ability?" i do no longer think of it does, yet i will confess that it form of looks like a outstanding argument in case you do no longer think of approximately it too plenty. in case you think of approximately how vast the universe is, and how possibly it is that there'll be some planets that are hospitable to existence, the argument starts looking plenty worse. as some distance because of fact the origins of existence are in touch, i do no longer think of all of us understand adequate approximately it to declare how "possibly" it is. For all all of us understand, anyplace existence can spring up, it does -- it must be very possibly.

It brings awareness to religion and the way God made humans and animals from the dirt

the world's complication and the way it is organized shows it was designed by god