Can no one defend Creationism anymore?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av_GUWy_gmNXT2RPGf0xrVLd7BR.?qid=20070904180710AAQ0oYi

Note the latest "additional info", it responds to the first question.

If you're going to answer one question, answer that one, not this one. Or both.

Albert: what a beautiful appeal to authority. Try again.

Check the link, y'all

David, I don't get what you're saying...

Mundo, we didn't evolve from them, we share a common ancestor.

Answer 1

Great scientists like Johannes KEPLER saw God's magnificance and constantly gave praise to God Almighty for his wonderful laws built into nature. He was a creationist.

So was Isaac NEWTON.......and he wrote 1 million words about his LITERAL belief in the Scripture. He was a creationist.
" I have a fundamental belief in the Word of God....I study the Bible daily". - Isaac Newton

The electromagnetic equations of James Clerk Maxwell attest to the Magnificant mathematical inginuity of the Creator.
He was a Creationist.
Louis Pasteur...was a avid Christian and Fundamental Bible believer....

Need I say more?

Thousands of other scientists freely admit it was their faith in God and Jesus Christ that led them to great discoveries...

Its only the ignorant who can't figure it out.

Answer 2

I can defend creationism. Your link is just not really a question.

Let me give an example of the erroneous thinking that is so easily accepted by evolutionists.

Ok, it is a fact that a chimp has about 95% similar DNA (latest figures from an Associated Press science article by Malcolm Ritter Sept 3, 07') No problem so far. When evolutionists then make a conclusion that humans and chimps must be related to each other and therfore evolved from similar roots-Big problem. Scientifically that conclusion is really a hypothesis. Now when you have a hypothesis you need to take the next step and prove or disprove it. If it can be observed that human and chimps have evolved from common ancestors it would prove the hypothesis. The truth is that there is no observable biological mechanism for that kind of evolution to happen. Furthermore the fossil record is clear that apes have been apes and humans have been only humans. Never mind what has been written in this or that scientific magazine to the contrary, we need verifyable proof we can see and test. We would have millions upon million of
real skelotens or bones of ape to men lifeforms if Darwinism was true. Instead we have less bones to fill an adult human coffin with all of the so called trasitional examples that are supposedly that. The FACT is that the so called ape like creature was the forbearer of apes and men is a myth. where is this or rather where are these creatures. Has anybody photographed one and put it on the cover of some scientific digest? No, because they don't exist except in the minds of evolutionists who want to believe it. What happened to objective science? It's been forgotten on this issue.

The only other reasonable conclusion about the similar ape and man DNA is that they were made that way from similar material. Scientifically we cannot say that happened because no man observed it happening. This is where people have to rely on secondary evidence or inference for some basis of belief. One can see the fact that of all the species in existance it is noted that they only reproduce with like kinds. The same fossils of species found in so called pre-mankind strata is the same as it's living counterpart today.

So to sum up- a hypothesis should not be treated as a fact. Evolution has a way of doing that.

Answer 3

rev all but Einstein thinks that hundreds of years of missing knowledge is irrelevant but even Newtons theory of gravity was trashed by the real Einstein. if ignorance is important as in his answer he wins the prize for arrogant ignorance .
this topic has been scrutinized to death but evidently some of us were not present . Maybe god hadn't finished creating their brains yet . sorry for the rude retort but enough is enough and I must go attend to a biological imperative as if there could ever be a god so stupid as make such a thing a part of life .

Answer 4

What was first, the chicken or the egg? Someone must have created the chicken first with the ability to produce eggs.

If we all humans evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys still exist? Unless, we did not evolved from monkeys and we were created.

Who is our common ancestor?

Answer 5

Hey, Rev. Albert Einstein, pretty much every scientist before Darwin was a creationist. What of it? It's not like they had a more plausible alternative.

Answer 6

What is the point? There is a gainsay negation of what anyone says. If one gives an answer the resonse becomes something to the effect of "You can't use that one" The argument/defence is not responded to but rather an ad hominem argument is given instead.

Answer 7

If you found a few people who believe to the death in something ridiculous, why would you spend a lot of your personal leisure time trying to convince them that they're wrong?

The mere act of believing in Simple 7-day Creationism in spite of the evidence requires a stubbornness that your persuasions will not weaken.

Answer 8

Uhhh... Christians go by the ten commandments but I like the reference it made me chuckle.

Answer 9

Do you get paid per the link?

Answer 10

Neither Creationists nor Evolutionists agree with each other. How can you defend anything with so many incarnations?