Science supports creationism?

Question

Since when? Please provide me with a citation from a peer reviewed scientific journal. Do not provide links to websites from religiously biased pseudoscientists.

Answer 1

Creationism is only believed by the xian fringe. Their science is called "just belief, have faith, the bible said so". Evolution is beyond question by any rational thinking person.

Answer 2

Look for a study title the Amazing Life of the Human Brain, done by the University of Michigan. It was a twenty year study done on 10,000 children, understanding the developmental stages of the human brain.

The brain stores memories using a bio chemical process, adding synaptic connectors as needed for the transference of memories between the cerebrum and the cerebellum.

Studies on the brain show that it absorbs into temporary storage, 40MBs per second, while a person is awake. At night, during that period of time when you are sleeping, but not dreaming, that data is sorted and moved into permanent storage. New chemical bonds are created for their storage.

The brain carries enough storage volume to last over 10,000 years. What evolutionary pressure could possible create that need?

Or, did the life span of humans once last for over 10,000 years, and we have now de-evolved? Consider how long evolution would have taken with that long a life span and how long each generation would have taken to pass?

Answer 3

I won't attack evolution, yet i'm going to assert that if identity isn't technology, neither is evolution. however the 1st think of you may desire to alter on your thoughts is that identity is creationism. they are completely somewhat some issues. they could agree on some factors, yet they are not the comparable. identity is technology, and makes use of the medical approach. of direction, evolution believers do the comparable element you declare identity proponents do. no remember what they see, it consistently seems to be evolution inflicting it. They on no account say that evolution could no longer do this, it fairly is basically consistently assumed. in case you like a good e book on why identity is technology, examine the only listed below. Please do no longer tell me you will no longer because of the fact the author lies, as i will assert the comparable element related to the authors you have confidence. in case you certainly should be responsive to what identity is all approximately, and why evolution would be unable to stand up to the comparable scrutiny, examine the e book. additionally, identity does not attack something. it fairly is basically searching for layout in nature. It has no longer something to do with faith or advent, even nevertheless it rather is of an analogous opinion that a writer could desire to be accessible. even nevertheless, it has no thought who the writer is. it fairly is basically as valid a technology as forensics, opposite engineering, SETI and cryptology. the only distinction is they are utilising the technology to biology, which makes some people uncomfortable. basically for the reason which you do no longer basically like the a hazard implications of something, does not make it non-technology. Evolution additionally has metaphysical implications, yet no one seems to have an issue with that. i would be unable to do the question justice in this small area, however the e book i discussed provides you with a greater finished answer. thank you for the considerate question. Oh, and every time you pay attention somebody asserting something derogatory approximately identity, basically prepare that to evolution, and you will see why it fairly is basically projection.

Answer 4

Saying science supports creationism is akin to saying science supports the flat earth theory--it's nonsense.

Answer 5

No.
Creationism is a belief. It has nothing to do with science.

Answer 6

Of course it does! Very well, as a matter of fact. You just need to be given a little information that evolutionists would rather die than to ever divulge or admit though they themselves cannot even argue these points. Ready? May wanna sit down if you aren't already.
1. It is fact that Charles Darwin himself was not only saying but trying to drive this point home with quite some effort that, "if cells (he was referring to animal as opposed to plant so I make this as clear as possible) are indeed more complex that we at first and at present believe and can see, or if these cells have, as some have not yet proven but speculate, a kind of memory or set of instructions within them on how to replicate, then everything, my entire theory of evolution, is completely wrong. It would show, without a doubt, intelligent design." I have enclosed a PARAPHRASE of what he said in quotes and must emphatically point out that these are NOT Darwin's exact words. But I can promise and am sure beyond a doubt these are clearly very close and more than cover all the key points that he was trying to communicate/point out. Is that close enough to a peer reviewed scientific journal? Right from the "Father of Evolution's" mouth? I daresay, you don't get better than that for evidence and or proof.
2. You seem like you are at least fairly intelligent though I would hazard to guess more than that. With that, I now present you with a scenario or two which I would invite you to "scientifically" analyze. Science will indeed support creationism by way of smashing evolution (once again) to bits. You be the judge. This is another "secret" one that few will tell you about. If, just IF we supposed evolution were even partially true say, in the sense of more toward micro than macroevolution like the Galapagos Islands where Darwin studied the variations of species between all the Islands(very small versions of evolution or an accelerated version of microevolution [in regards to time], then, if even on a very slight (as compared to macro like from fish to land animal) kind of evolution, like different beaks there would HAVE TO be transitions, right? I mean you don't just hear a loud POP sound and behold! the beak has changed! So, as I said, even on small changes of similarities, there has NEVER been found a fossil, an animal, or any other kind of proof (not even enough to suggest that it could be), of transitions. Why? Why would that be if evolution is irrefutably true? I mean, do the animals in transition instinctively become 100% biodegradeable so that there would never be evidence? Yes, I did have someone present that to me as a possibility. I am willing to bet or at least hope you are quite a bit smarter than that. So what about when animals developed complex organs/body parts like eyes? Not even an eye that is 99.9% complete in becoming the end product will work! So, then how would it ever know that it was even transitioning into the right thing? Now at some point, someone pro-evolution will say that it is clearly by all these random chances, right? Come on. If you are that prone to just swallowing the bait even when it looks like a shiny barbed hook, I have a really cool bridge THAT I MYSELF OWN in New York City that I will sell you for real cheap.
3. As I stated in the first point, or rather Darwin did and I reitierated, the DNA that his descriptions so closely matched that it would be the norm to suppose he DID know about it already and just never called it by its name, does scientifically prove creationism. But so much more that Darwin could have even imagined. I refer to this not to repeat a point as if I were running out of proof, but to bring me to the newest (or at least really recent) discoveries with DNA or that which is directly related to it by someway or another. I am talking about stem cells. If it is all random, then how in the world does the stem cell perfectly turn 100% of the time into the cell it has been told to turn into? We are talking random and without any intelligent design or interference. No, that does NOT happen in even the best of circumstances and you know this. Random and perfect cannot, without being part of a joke or the punchline, be in the same sentence where they are being measured up for similarities. Vast differences between the two will net you dozens of sentences. No way. Stem cells would, at best, mess up at least half the time if you use a general Law of Averages and try to still fit it within your Random and unintended/unintelligent world. There, I have used very basic forms of scientific analysis and reasoning and disproved evolution AND proved creationism. You are limited in what rules you can use to prove your theories, namely random, chaos, entropy in some cases, and chance happenings aka mistakes or accidents. You set your own rules I did not. You chose the battlefield and handicapped your own selves. Do I have more? Lots. But these 3 are quite enough to work on if you really truly are willing to objectively (not even open minded...just neutral) view and look up the facts I have presented and also really think about the dillemmas I have presented like transitions, DNA, etc. I have bought stock in Excedrin thinking about these things trying also to disprove anything close to relating to God at one point too. But in a battle of a tank (God's side and creationism) versus a dull buck knife (evolution/ anti-God) you must eventually put down the knife and the pride and admit defeat.

Answer 7

not now, not ever.

because they only have three tenets:
- god diddit
- darwin was wrong
- some things are not meant to be known