Do creationist ever have any evidence other than Answersingenesis?

Question

Seriously everytime I ever see a link posted to do with creationism it is to this site, can you guys not offer something other or is this your only "proof"?

So I see most of you have no idea whatsoever about thow the fossil record works.

Rev Einstein-what choice did scientists have back then? Kepler said nothing agianst god and was forced to flee Germany, Copernicus would have been persecuted had he not died first, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake, Gallileo was placed under house arrest for life. What rational scientist would come out and claim atheism or anything but christianity when it was not uncommon for one to be burned at the stake for saying so?

Michael Behe? Are you freaking serious? Pseudoscience at it's best.

For those who say there are no trasitional fossils (A all fossils are transitional and (B here are a few hundred for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

Answer 1

What's the case for creationism?

Let's look at the whole thing - the arguments, the evidence, everything - and strip away what's invalid until we get to the heart of the matter:

Lies
----

Let's take away all the outright lies such as "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" and "there are no transitional fossils" and "no-one has ever seen speciation occur".

Deceptions
----------

Let's take away all the dishonest selective quoting from The Origin of Species, the implication that controversy over the details of evolution means controversy over the fact that it occurs, equivocation over the word 'theory', and so on.

Logical Fallacies
-----------------

Let's dispose of all the logical fallacies employed routinely by creationists, such as:

o Argument from Ignorance ("I can't see how feature X could have evolved, therefore it couldn't have evolved");

o Strawman ("evolutionists say that living organisms popped out of nowhere by pure random chance");

o Argument from Adverse Consequences ("if everyone knew that we were just the products of evolution they would have no reason to be morally good");

o Non sequitur ("if evolution was true we would see rocks with wings" or "if evolution was true we would see dogs giving birth to cats");

o Invalid premise ("the Bible is true, the Bible says living organisms were created, therefore evolution is false");

... and many others.

The Evidence
------------

OK, so having stripped away all the lies, deceptions and fallacies used to argue for creationism, we come to the evidence:

Well, actually, there isn't any. There is not one single valid argument, nor one scrap of objective evidence for creationism. This is why creationism is not science, but simply an unsupported religious belief.

Answer 2

“Rational arguments don’t in many circumstances paintings on non secular human beings. in any different case there may be no non secular human beings.” - Gregory homestead, M.D. Season 4 Episode 2 the incredible Stuff. -enable me attempt to make crystal sparkling what's general previous actual looking doubt, and what needs further study, approximately evolution. Evolution as a technique that has continually long previous on interior the background of the earth would be doubted in straightforward terms by capacity of people who're blind to the data or are proof against data, by way of emotional blocks or to familiar bigotry. by contrast, the mechanisms that deliver evolution approximately incredibly want study and explanation. There at the instant are not any thoughts to evolution as background which could face up to serious examination. yet we are consistently discovering new and significant data approximately evolutionary mechanisms.- Theodosius Dobzhansky "not something in Biology is clever different than interior the mild of Evolution", American Biology instructor vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution as against Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Answer 3

I say that you need to study the living cell, the nucleus, mitochondria, DNA, RNA, proteins and protein synthesis, cell division, etc. Study how the DNA actually unwraps itself, splits into 2 strands, creates a mirror image of itself (RNA), recombines the 2 strands, then rolls itself back up into it's original helixical formation.

Then study the internal workings of a Cray Supercomputer.

Analyze which one is more complex. (If you're in the slightest bit honest with yourself, you'll have to admit that the Cray is simple in comparison).

Then analyze the views of how each came into existence. Use the same logic for both cases. (That is to say, if the simpler of the two came through the use of intelligence, then how could you say that the more complex of the two was an accident? Likewise, if the more complex of the two was an accident, then why can't you say that the simpler of the two wasn't an accident either?)

Science and logic. What DO they teach in school these days?

Answer 4

Yes, the blatant fact that scientists have no transitional fossils: Fossils of creatures in between 2 types of creature. If macro-evolution occurred, where are these fossils. Darwin himself noted that without this evidence, his theories would be blown to pieces.

Answer 5

if documentable scientific proof is necessary before anything exists, then the Theory of Evolution is out.

Sorry guy, but while it is a very well considered idea, it has yet to be definitively proven through acceptable scientific observation.

But then again, Gravity presumably existed before Sir Isaac discovered it, too. According to the atheist mantra, we were all had a hell of a time staying on the planet before then, cuz gravity didn't exist.

Answer 6

If you're really interested, I suggest the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

Answer 7

They have Dr. Dino too....but since he is in jail for tax fraud it is way to easy to make fun of those links. So they only get posted once per customer.

Answer 8

2+2=4
------------------------------
When you can show me more then proof of it, I will point you to the second web site of same content. Won't be as easy to read and navigate though.
------------------------------
Or - I might change my mind and ask you to disproove TWO things from that web site before I give you another one.

By the way, I never list that web site in my posts, but you get my point.

Answer 9

Well they have the bible, which is their proof of god - and they know it's true because it was written by god...

Answer 10

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....

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

"I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy....The astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world". -- Robert Jastrow (Astomomer) and former Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Its only the ignorant who can't figure it out. Please get an education