Creationists Turn

I have been with this website a couple of days now and several others over the course of this year and it is time that creationism be held to the same level of accountability that is expected of evolution. WE have given example after example from many different disciplines and the only response that seems to be consistent is denial by creationists.Now I will turn the tables. Present a clear and consistent picture of how creationism is backed by the evidence with this caveat Do not use the bible as source for evidence only the world around you . If possible give sources of research being conducted and be sure that they follow proper protocols for peer review.Evidence may not be anecdotal and you must be able to answer challenges to your presentation without contradicting yourself. I await answers and I do hope that I do not sound angry as I am not.

Not even close my man. The two chemicals Hydrgen peroxide and hydroquinone in the bombadier beetle would slowly oxidize when mixed together unless they are first introduced to a catalyst which the beetle controls. This is getting off the point of my challenge. How would creationism explain the mechanism of the bombadier beetle.Where is the research being done by independent creation scientists to show the physical procedure to explain how this world works. I do not want to see an arguement that chases supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory I want you to think how your world view can.

The hydrogen peroxide is a by-product of metabolism in insects.quinones are used to harden the cuticle itself. Stink bugs use it to make themselves distasteful to predators.Since these chemicals are excreted by these insects they already taste bad even before the evolution of the bombadier beetle.The bombadier beetle would not have to be accurate initially in evolutionary development to acquire an advantage against predators.So now we have an infinite God with infinite intelligence and that is also omnipotent.You agaain fail to think.What is the evidence you present for an Omnipotent infinitely intelligent God? You present no evidence, you fall back upon a rebuttal that has no teeth and you do not even understand how you contradict yourself with the idea of "intelligent design"Please do some real work here because while it is easy to criticise the work of others it is a whole other level of intelligence to do your own.Remember they only tackle the one who has the ball.
Now the concept of "intelligent design"claims that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. So you postulate design but you do not I repeat do not offer an explanation of the mechanism by which this is design operates. Again you fall back upon biblical concepts instead of actually having to explain on your own.
Let us see if I can get some gray matter working. Take the moon and sun in their daily movements.At certain times the moon will be up in the sky at the same time as the sun but will be only partially lit while the rest is in shadow.Since the sun is the source of the moons' light how can this be?

We must also wonder since the position of the creationists is that a design implies a designer because of the complexity present.By THAT SAME LOGIC God being infinite and omnipotent must be mind-bogglingly complex.Who or what designed God? Of course God just is as the creationists say and does not have a designer. What tripe! They plead special case for the introduction of intelligent design and then they back pedal when faced with having to think how to explain their model.They state that he is beyond space and time and one can only wonder at the evidence they have for that.They hang on the coattails of actual science yet do none of their own research from scratch.Since they think that evolution is a belief system then for crying out loud why not dump all knowledge built around the concept and try to put together a working system that uses creationism as a working model and be done with it? This means having to start from scratch and explain the workings of biology and medicine, geology,etc. without the model that allowed the dicoveries we now employ to predict new areas of research. Surely God will show you the way (ask and ye shall recieve).It strikes me as a hired hand who, on an expedition to an unexplored region following a courageous man who confidently overcomes hardships and trials to blaze a new trail into unknown areas, follows behind but states that the man he is following is a fool and that he would be far better suited to the job.
Walk the walk boys. I am tired of the banter.

Two co-orbiting masses are not formed through random process but through gravitational interaction and the complexity is not simply concerning their orbital characterisics

larwils I responded in Post #3 and #5 and if neccesary I will go into greater detail.However,the original purpose of this post is not to do the same old thing with creationists pulling up one thing after another in looking for apparent holes in evolution but to have creationists to finally implement creation science based upon your worldview.
And to mike the wiz in #17 You cannot hold to to the idea that coming upon a watch in the forest must necessitate an intelligence and then state that a far more complex God does not adhere to that same logic.What is your evidence for the statement that god has always been?

I am going to reinstate a question from earlier so that I may give creationists a chance to "stretch" their brains.
Take the moon and the sun in their daily movements.You notice one day that the moon is up in the daytime sky along with the sun but is only partially lit while the rest is in shadow.Since the sun is the source of the moons' light how do we explain this?
As a somewhat more difficult execise can anyone explain why there are two tides a day on earth?

Sorry coragyps i am not responding to your thread but merely launching a query. I have not had any creationists try to answer the questions in post#30 and I am wondering why.It is really not necessary to be correct. The point of it is to see what your world view is compared to that which has been thouroghly researched and tested over and over and acceptedas being the bets explanation of the data.Once I recieve some good level of response I will post the answers in order for you to see how even everyday events are taken for granted.

You know Mammathus I really would like to see them try because if they are honest with themselves then they wuld be far better off playing their own"devil's advocate" since,if they could produce science in that way, then they would gain immeasurable respect. At the same time if they cannot then they must face up to what is their single greatest gain.Like any scientist who has a pet theory that is not born out by the experiments he must let that theory die and waste no more time with it.

I wonder,Mammuthus, how it is since they are so sure that there is a God and he created the world that they are so adamant about how deep their faith is? It would appear that they are not even aware of the discrepancy. I thought by asking those questions to see if they were aware of how the world works or if,as I suspect,they have not the slightest interest.I suspect the latter.

Crashfrog. My intent was not to insult or even draw a conclusion about their rationality but by a simple understanding of the English language it makes no sense to say you both completely believe with all your heart in a God, afterlife,whatever and at the same time state that your have faith in God.The necessity of faith comes about when you do not have certainty about the belief. They are mutually contradictory.

This is one of those occasions where it seems my education is at odds with dictionary definition.It has been my experience that belief on the part of religion was absolute otherwise why have any. It has also been my observation that faith is what the believer falls upon whenever their belief is in doubt.It is my quirk in life to have,wrongly it seems,viewed them as opposites. My apologies for the confusion.

Speaking of yec's where might they be found now?