Discussing the evidence that support creationism

Proteins. Simple proteins allow for cells to live. There are a specific 20 that are needed for DNA to be created. However, these 20 proteins are only created at the command of the DNA they produce. Assuming evolution is real, than at some time, there were neither, and now there are both. So, to start the cycle you need DNA, but DNA needs those 20 proteins, and those proteins need DNA. So, because both needs the other, one could logically conclude that there were either both or neither at the beginning of time (the big bang or 'God made the heavens and the earth'). And because there are both now, we must assume that both were created sometime between the beginning and now. Because of their mutual dependence on one another, both had to be created at the same time. Therefore, creation is the only likely solution.

I hope you take the time to learn a little something here.

Aquilegia753 writes:There were trucks before factories. However, there could not have been proteins before DNA, or DNA before proteins.

This both implies a God and an instant creation.

Could you please show us where Aquilegia or any Creationist came to this Forum to learn?

Could you please also show us where any Evolutionist was recognized as a teacher and accepted in that role by any Creationist?

Creationists come to EvC Forum to evidence Creationism and show the falsity of Evolutionism.

Then they must have infinite determination as they have failed countless times and will keep marching on the path to failure. As noted, there hasn't been evidence presented that supports creationism, just goddidit.

If you want to review quite a bit of evidence from a YEC (which I am not) then go here:

So, you put forth this list of PRATTs, which you refer to as "quite a bit of evidence," but then immediately disclaim any belief in the evidence by saying that you are not a YEC. I think the internal consistency meter has just blown itself out of existence.

You have misunderstood. I was attempting to say that whatever arguments are made to support a young earth I reject. Everything else is top notch stuff.

Even if I'm wrong, please watch this video and tell me how this could have evolved by chance.

There are many things that don't support evolution and do creation (see message 168). So, evolutionists (yes, I say 'evolutionists' because I feel that evolutionism is not a science, but a religion. I'll explain later) must take the evidence that supports evolutionism, and ignore those that don't.

Charles Darwin could be considered the 'inventor' of evolutionism. Now, being a scientific country, we like to base things on scientific evidence. Now, first, you have to prove something exists (to you). Being told that the sun exists if you live underground and have for your entire life, you don't know that it does. So, we have five senses to tell things exist. Has anybody here ever seen Darwin's brain, felt Darwin's brain, smelt, heard, or tasted his brain? Because nobody has done so, we cannot prove scientifically that Charles Darwin ever had a brain, and that his ideas had any validity. So, we must take them on faith of their origins. Faith without proof, because you cannot prove an idea if you cannot prove that the idea's origin ever existed.So, now that I've scientifically broken science, I realize that I must take science at its word. I must trust that scientists have brains, and that they know what they are doing. Therefore, everybody in the world that trusts scientists need faith that they have brains. So, if you can trust humans' brains even if you have no proof that they exist, why can't you trust a God, even if you have no proof He exists? Because the latter is considered a religion, why can't the former be one too? They have the same definition.