Creationists, I'll ask again, as you completely and utterly failed to answer the last time....?

Why are you wasting your time on something you wouldn't believe if someone gave

it to you?

God himself could walk you through the whole process and you still wouldn't believe.

Here is a website of a creation scientist you won't believe either:

www.creationworldview.org by a Dr Grady McMurtry.

If you really want evidence, quit messing around asking Joe Bloe Creationist who is

going on his right to believe what he wants, and get in touch with a genuine scientist

who has years of knowledge and know how on the evolution part for the facts you

won't believe, because he is a creationist. The name again is Dr. GRADY McMURTRY.

If you don't want to believe in creation, that's your right and no one is obligated to prove

to you anything. Since you keep trying to deal with those you consider utter failures,

why do you keep trying?

What is that definition of insanity? Someone that keeps doing the same thing over and

over again and expecting different results.

As the Beattles used to sing: "Let It Be."

There is none, but they'll come out with all the 'it's a test of faith', 'lord works in mysterious ways', 'outside of time and space' rubbish etc.

So frustrating trying to expect anything sensible from those people

They have nothing but Boolshyt and LIES... sorry - I repeated myself ;)

“Fact = verifiably accurate data

Law = statement which is always true under specific circumstances

Hypothesis = testable, potentially falsifiable, explanation of facts/laws

Theory = unifying framework explaining all of the above.”

“All the available evidence from any source anywhere supports permits or aligns with evolution unanimously and exclusively… there is no factual evidence against evolution but if there was that would not be evidence for creationism.”

“For evolution to be a fake the following conditions would have to be fulfilled:

> Every university in the world would have to be in on the deception.

> Every biologist would have to be a liar.

> Every teacher of science would have to be in on it.

> And most of the other sciences too.

> The majority of drugs could NOT have been invented…

> Nor would they work.”

Don't forget that the scientific community's entire basis as a meritocracy would have to be pretend as well, since any scientist who *could* show evolution to be false would earn fame and fortune beyond the dreams of avarice.

Which would mean that every single biologist on Earth would necessarily have to possess some really bizarre and utterly selfless ulterior motive for joining the "conspiracy".

Xians “are really against anything that discredits their religion, and evolution does exactly that.

If evolution is true, then the story of Adam & Eve didn't literally happen, and if Adam & Eve didn't happen then Eve wasn't around to commit the "original sin" which means Jesus didn't need to die on the cross, and at that point their entire religion basically falls apart.”

~

There is no evidence and creationism isn't even a science it is made up bullshi*t directly from the bible.

"Its so simple. Show me a fossil of a snake that evolved into a cat! Where are the fossils showing creatures evolving from one species to another? They are NOT there!"

Cant you tell from the answers, that creationists obviously have no understanding of basic science. That is WHY they are creationists.

Just out of curiosity, why do you even bother to ask? You already KNOW the sort of responses you'll get, so why waste energy on idiots? Ask questions of smart people; you sure won't learn anything asking these fools' questions.

A lot of Creationists, like Hugh Ross are Old-Earth Creationists. Hugh Ross has a Phd in Astronomy. The Bible never says how old the earth is. Young-Earth Creationists claim the earth is only 6,000 years old because they add up the lifetimes of the people in the Genesis geneologies. However, the Genesis geneologies cannot be used to calculate the age of the earth, because only the most important names are mentioned, and the others are left out. "son of" or "father of" does not always mean an immediate son or father, sometimes it means "descendant of" or "anscestor of". The Hebrew word for day is Yom. Yom has 4 literal definitions, including a long but finite period of time. The Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" also mean "completion" and "beginning". So there is no reason to believe the creation days were only 24hr days, or that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That being said, there are many evidences for biblical creation such as the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe, the sudden appearance of life in the fossil record(eg. the Cambrian Explosion), and irreducible complexity. I recommend the following website: www.reasons.org

Don't hold your breath.

See above the circular argument. Imagine if an atheist was asked for proof of evolution and simply said: ' because Charles Darwin says so'. would that satisfy the creationist?

No they cannot. That's why evolution is the Generally accepted unified theory. If there was even the slightest bit of real evidence for creationism, then it would be all over Fox News everyday of the week.

Diamonds, which were supposedly formed relatively early on in the earth's history (on the order of hundreds of millions to billions of years ago) based on dating methods, contain carbon-14 in levels inexplicable to those who hold to these old ages. The ballpark date based on the carbon-14 is more in the realm of 10s of thousands of years, and has even been seen in diamonds produced in more recent massive disasters.

Diamonds are quite hard, and there's no known mechanism for how this carbon-14 could have "leaked in." It points to a younger age for earth than that which is commonly perceived.

The Grand Canyon is often pointed to by scientists as evidence for the age of the earth. However, this supposedly millions of years old natural monument to time's power has a problem: the edges of the canyon are still sharp. In places, you could stand with your heels on solid ground at the top, and your toes hanging over a sheer cliff several meters high. Millions of years of erosion by the wind should have rounded all of the edges long ago. This points to a much younger age for the canyon, and a huge cataclysmic event that managed to form it in a short period of time.

The appearance of design in nature is evidence of a designer, and it will remain valid until a different, observable, repeatable, testable, verifiable model is developed that adequately explains how the apparent design appeared. As of yet, this has not been done.

Newtonian 'laws' where Work into a system overcomes forces...

This would be called Mechanics in Physics...

Things change because work was placed into systems which are Living and Active.