Creationists, what evidence can you provide to substantiate your beliefs?

don't you love it when people ask questions they know there is not an acceptable answer for? it seems both atheists and theists are guilty of this one

edit at mike jones (poster below me): you obviously don't know sh*t about sh*t so stfu

your dumbass "irreducible complexity" ******** has long been discredited as not being science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&list=PL...

It is important to understand that everyone has exactly the same evidence - which exists in the present. Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence with different worldviews. That is different assumptions about the past and different philosophical approaches.

People who dismiss creation as 'unscientific', or who claim that evolution (or creation) is 'proved', have missed the point. They either don't understand what science is, or want to hoodwink people into agreeing with them.

It is not possible to prove anything about the unobserved past using the scientific method, which involves observation, testing, repeating. All views on origins are held by *faith*.

If one was to take an unbiased approach, one would ask simply which of creation and evolution provides the best explanation of the observed evidence. It is difficult to take an unbiased approach, since we all have a worldview. The evidence does not speak for itself, it has to be interpreted.

I used to believe that evolution was the best explanation, but then I discovered that there is an awful lot of evidence which contradicts evolution, which is 'hidden' by evolutionists and most of the media. But if you check CMI you will see that evolution is quite easy to refute scientifically.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index

Google "Answers in Genesis," "Creation Research Institute" or creation.com. Lots of resources available for open minds. How's the abiogenesis coming? Have you been able to produce/find anything close to the simplest form of life yet? And I thought Christianity required faith. Pretty cool how your museums present none of the modern versions of ducks, squirrels, ginko and over 400 other current species that were found WITH the dinosaur fossils! Love that "punctuated equilibrium." Now that you have a fancy name, that really gives us evidence that it happened. But I guess you already knew that via "petitio principii" and "ad hominem" logic.

There is much.

I'll tackle the design aspect.

What are the odds that on the one planet that sustains life, there would be a roughly spherical moon? Not just that, but a moon of a certain size and distance from the earth such that the ratio of the size to the distance is just slightly less than that of the size of the sun to the distance of the earth from the sun. That's why they look roughly the same size in the sky. The slight difference allows us to see the edge of the sun during solar eclipses, from which we learn a lot about the sun.

I think that's pretty cool, and to me it suggests a designer.

EDIT: Do you even know what the Anthropic Principle is? That's the principle that says, "Well, duh, of course we're in a universe that sustains life. We wouldn't be here otherwise."

Basically, it's used to explain why our universe and our planet can support life as they do. That means that anything that would fall under the Anthropic Principle must be necessary for life. The moon being shaped and positioned to let us study the sun is not a necessity of life.

Don't just holler out words without looking at what's being said. I'm certain you can come up with an intelligent dismissal of what I've presented (such is the beauty of rhetoric and human points of view), but the Anthropic Principle is not it.

EDIT: Yeah, I'm a bit of a poet... =P

Were you going to write more? I'm not certain if you meant to stop at the W or not.

At any rate, there are many arrangements of the moon/sun relationship that would still be compatible with life. There's no reason why, out of all of the ones possible that would have had little to no effect on life, this particular arrangement should have won out. The A.P. does not apply.

It could be coincidence, but to me it looks like design.

We are told that domestic grains came about because stone age man started to cultivate them changing something like wild wheat to domestic wheat. Yet if you really break it down as to what stone age man would have had to have done to do this it makes no sense. Taking inedible grains and turing it in to something we can eat. Yet scientist say this is what happened. You can read the link below to see this makes no sense.

This makes evolution or man made genetic manipulation seem unlikely.

Though I'm sure you will just ignore this like the scientist do as well.

PS I knew you would choose not to get it. Ok since domestic grains could not have evolved, the scientists say they came about by stone age man using genetic manipulation as the answer. Yet this doesn't fly either. Botanists stick to this story though it is impossible because they know the only other explination is these plants where somehow put here by something.

The universe and the earth were created "in the beginning"-Genesis 1:1. So the Bible does not say how old they are.

Contrary to the claims of some here, the fossil record supports creation, not evolution.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the the fossil record in his time this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.

At the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: “Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.” A View of Life, by Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981, pp. 638, 649.

Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer. Natural History, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” by Alfred S. Romer, October 1959, pp. 466, 467.

These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”Kentish Times, England, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” December 11, 1975, p. 4.

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”

Liberty, “Evolution or Creation?” by Harold G. Coffin, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Scientist Francis Hitching in his book The Neck of the Giraffe writes: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

edit: Any written evidence I might present would be criticized as "cut and paste" , yet isn't that supposedly what you are asking for? Your illogical responce is dishonest.

I would say becareful what you ask for because you just might get it. But that would be stupid wouldn't it? Someday you will see it for yourself. Proven without a doubt. And you will be without excuse for it is for all to see but you turned your face away from the evidence. What can I say to change your mind when u have already rejected the creator. When u stand in front of the creator how will you explain evolution.

*** g 9/06 p. 21 Why We Believe in a Creator ***

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

*** g 9/06 p. 23 Why We Believe in a Creator ***

▪ PAULA KINCHELOE

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

*** g 9/06 p. 23 Why We Believe in a Creator ***

▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

The evidence the earth is about 10,00 years old is within the same collection of data used to support the old earth theory.

Draw your own conclusions. Hint: Almost all scientists are atheists, or are not born again.

Go study Anatomy and Physiology then come back and talk to me.

The level of homeostasis in your body alone says that it couldn't have evolved, that it had to be created as is.

It's a pass/fail. The End.

Just because you are mad at your Creator, doesn't mean your pitiful attempts at explaining the obvious is legitimate.