Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[viole]

The Chicago Manual of STYLE is a manual of STYLE, a quality you apparently lack. No one says that using the word "alright" or even "aint" without an apostrophe is not possible. These usages are, however, condemned by the Chicago Manual of Style and the GMAT Test very closely follows the Chicago Manual of Style, perhaps because the University of Chicago is part of the Graduate Management Admissions Council, which is the governing body for the test in question.


Not so.


I do not. I have simply pointed out that it is in bad style.

I don't see much of a resemblance.

Untrue. You pointed out that, and I quote, "You need to learn how to spell all right".

I hope you appreciate that there is a difference between "bad style" and "bad spelling". Now, since "alright" might be bad style (which I am not sure about), that does not entail that it is misspelled.

I am sure even a kid would realize the difference. By the way, who is that guy on the picture leaning on you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Who cares? That is sufficient to invalidate the concusions of the article you claimed to have destroyed relativity. Which is not surprising, considering that relativity is pretty much alive and the theorem that proves you cannot send information faster than light's still hold. Despite all attempts to disprove both of them.

Relativity is not alive. It is a theory. To be alive something must generally grow, consume food for energy, and reproduce.

Or do you think that relativity is alive because of a mass conspiracy amongst scientists who, for some reason, love it so much they could not live without it?

No, I think relativity is alive because science knows it's wrong, but hasn't come up with another alternative yet.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Zosimus]

Untrue. You pointed out that, and I quote, "You need to learn how to spell all right".

I hope you appreciate that there is a difference between "bad style" and "bad spelling". Now, since "alright" might be bad style (which I am not sure about), that does not entail that it is misspelled.

I am sure even a kid would realize the difference. By the way, who is that guy on the picture leaning on you?

Ciao

- viole

The unshaved adult is I, whereas the child is my fourth child. I have 6 so far. So if evolution were a competition, I'd be kicking your ***.

 

[viole]

The unshaved adult is I, whereas the child is my fourth child. I have 6 so far. So if evolution were a competition, I'd be kicking your ***.

To be precise, as a man, you have some confidence to have 6 kids, lol.


Incidentally, according to evolution, you are not kicking anybody's ***. It is your genes that do, at best. You are just a vessel thereof. A machine incrementally selected and blindly programmed for their propagation. A disposable middle man, so to speak. And most of those genes are shared with me, and other primates. The meaning of life, in a nutshell.

So, if they could talk, they would probaby say thanks.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Relativity is not alive. It is a theory. To be alive something must generally grow, consume food for energy, and reproduce.

Mmh, I wonder what that technician meant when he tod me that my refrigerator was dead.

No, I think relativity is alive because science knows it's wrong, but hasn't come up with another alternative yet.

You should learn to use the "quote" feature.

By the way, it is entirely possible that relativity is wrong. Or just an approximation of a more encompassing theory. I am not holding my breath, but we never know.

Nevertheless, independently from relativity, not many people today believe that information travels faster than light's. And gravitational influence can be used to transmit information. Obviously.

So, do you have some evidence of science thinking that information can travel faster than light's?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

To be precise, as a man, you have some confidence to have 6 kids, lol.

Children are expensive. On the other hand, do you think that if someone approached me with $100,000 and offered it in exchange for one of my children that I would say yes? Obviously my children's worth is greater than that.

Incidentally, according to evolution, you are not kicking anybody's ***. It is your genes that do, at best.

If you believed any of that nonsense, you would not be here. You would think that every person was preprogrammed by his or her genes to have the beliefs that he or she does. What is the point of debating with someone if his or her outlook is genetically determined?

 

[Zosimus]

Mmh, I wonder what that technician meant when he tod me that my refrigerator was dead.

Perhaps he should have said kaput.

By the way, it is entirely possible that relativity is wrong. Or just an approximation of a more encompassing theory. I am not holding my breath, but we never know.

All scientific theories are wrong.

Nevertheless, independently from relativity, not many people today believe that information travels faster than light's.

Information travels faster than than light's what?

So, do you have some evidence of science thinking that information can travel faster than light's

Travel faster than light's what? Oh and it's never evidence of + noun + verb+ing. You must surely mean evidence THAT information can travel faster than light's (something).

 

[jeager106]

Kids? I have kids.
Four of 'em.
Ages 50 to 17.
17!!!!! How'd that happen?????

She was single with 3 hungry, cute daughters, 25 years younger than me and had HUGE boobs.

Of course we aren't together any longer but she gave me child #4, a son now 17 and a wonderful son!
I wouldn't change a thing.
Sadly the mother of my other 3 died recently.
My 45 year old is with me now. A skilled builder and carpenter he gutted my house and is making it
beautiful!
I don't live there at this time, with fiance now so I can stay out of his way.
I can't wait to see it when it's done.
All I have to do is PAY for it.
But I digress.

 

[viole]

Children are expensive. On the other hand, do you think that if someone approached me with $100,000 and offered it in exchange for one of my children that I would say yes? Obviously my children's worth is greater than that.


If you believed any of that nonsense, you would not be here. You would think that every person was preprogrammed by his or her genes to have the beliefs that he or she does. What is the point of debating with someone if his or her outlook is genetically determined?

Not necessarily. It could be that I am programmed to do exactly that. And it could be that we are genetically programmed to change our mind if exposed to different outputs. Remember, we could be machines able to change states according to external outputs. Or machines getting satisfactions by providing that output.

So, your rebuttal fails immediately.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Perhaps he should have said kaput.

Cool. i will tell him. But since he is a German, I will make sure it will spell kaputt correctly.

All scientific theories are wrong.

With probability one?

Information travels faster than than light's what?


Travel faster than light's what? Oh and it's never evidence of + noun + verb+ing. You must surely mean evidence THAT information can travel faster than light's (something).

Whatever. I make the probably unsafe assumption that your are not so silly to not understand what I mean. That it travels faster than light. Better?

And your evidence is.....

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Yes, because the information casts doubt on the previous claim that the Out of Africa theory is correct. Perhaps it is, but the data are not sufficient to conclude such a thing.

The data is flawed as the dates fall within the margins of the "Africa Theory". It is also dismissed by an overwhelming consensus and new data such as genetics. So it is not as significant as you think

I think you don't understand the theory that you are defending.

I wasn't defending the "Africa theory". I was attacking your sources for reasons pointed out previously. As I said you didn't research your source well.

Since the Out of Africa theory postulates that humans arose in Africa at least 100,000 years ago and migrated from there some 80,000 years back, a finding of 130k BP teeth in Asia tends to undermine the theory in question.

The date ranges as much as 130k years, you didn't research the "Africa Theory". The teeth are 80k years ago which falls into the margins. More so you made a "bet" that this example of teeth actually puts to question the "African theory" and sided with an "Asia theory". Yet it your lack of research and information that forced this conclusion and your bet. In the end you sided with the theory with the least evidence even as a wager which is telling.

Uhm... you understand the difference between undermine and disprove.... don't you?

Undermining a theory to a point that you place a wager against it amounts to disproving the "African theory" by following your rhetoric. Read your own comments.

 

[gnostic]

One of the main things creationists talk about is how science backs up the Bible even though the Bible is not a science book. For example, God created fully adult creatures so we know that the chicken came before the egg or the oak tree before the acorn.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

1. 
   Genesis 1:11,12
   Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:21
   So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:25
   And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

Now can you name a single scientist who agree those verses you have quoted are "scientific"?

I asks because if any scientist who think those have verses are scientific, are not scientists at all.

One of the things about science is that they give in-depth detail or explanation on how thing things work.

Take the verse verse, about plants. You don't need science and you certainly don't need to be a genius to know fruit come from fruit trees or that most plants come from seeds.

Ever since the Neolithic people 9000 years ago began to farm their own crops, they already knew where wheats, vegetables and fruits come from.

None of those verses explain a single thing of scientific values that these Neolithic farmers didn't already know.

Before Neolithic farming, Palaeolithic hunters and gatherers have learn to find and pick edible fruits from fruit trees. Genesis 1:11-12, saying the "fruit trees yield fruits" is not science, and it's hardly insightful.

By the time Genesis was written, it is the Iron Age, where people were more advanced than Neolithic and Bronze Age people. But the author of Genesis saying "fruit trees yield fruits", show that was the limits of his intelligent in regarding to agriculture, the author has an education of a moron. Even Neolithic illiterate farmers knew more than that.

And Genesis 1:21 and 1:25 are the same. Only idiots would find "science" in these verses.

They lacked explanatory details about animals.

It doesn't tell you about the anatomy and physiology of each species of animals. Genesis doesn't tell you where they live (e.g. jungles, rainforest, desert, mountains, tundra regions, etc), what their diets are, what are their life expectancy, how often and when do they mate and produce offspring (just the one, or in their hundreds),

Not all birds can fly (e.g. Emus, ostriches, chicken, kiwis, penguins, etc) and some creatures that can fly are not birds (e.g. bats, flies, mosquitoes, etc). Not every creatures that can swim are fishes (e.g. whales, dolphins, crocodiles, turtles...and did I not already mention penguins?)

The verses tell us nothing about the "biology", and they don't tell us about it habits.

Saying that god created them from nothing - like they weren't there before, then in an instance, they are all there, with all there kinds - that's like magic, supernatural...well, that's not science, that's myth and God-did-it superstition.

So please, tell me, which moronic scientists truly think your verses have scientific merits? Perhaps, these "scientists" were these so-called self-titled "creationist scientists"?

 

[james bond]

if you were to put one tenth of the energy you use for ratification into searching out and understanding the truth....

Did you mean ratification or rationalization? If it's ratification, then I am doing that by reading the Bible and applying it to see whether it is valid. When was the last time you understood the truth? You haven't been able to explain anything. It's usually a complaint about me or something a believer said. That's the truth. Some would opine that you're a whiner or a beotchy person. Maybe you should change your description to Advocatus Susurrone or serial complainer.

 

[james bond]

Now can you name a single scientist who agree those verses you have quoted are "scientific"?

I asks because if any scientist who think those have verses are scientific, are not scientists at all.

One of the things about science is that they give in-depth detail or explanation on how thing things work.

Take the verse verse, about plants. You don't need science and you certainly don't need to be a genius to know fruit come from fruit trees or that most plants come from seeds.

Ever since the Neolithic people 9000 years ago began to farm their own crops, they already knew where wheats, vegetables and fruits come from.

None of those verses explain a single thing of scientific values that these Neolithic farmers didn't already know.

Before Neolithic farming, Palaeolithic hunters and gatherers have learn to find and pick edible fruits from fruit trees. Genesis 1:11-12, saying the "fruit trees yield fruits" is not science, and it's hardly insightful.

By the time Genesis was written, it is the Iron Age, where people were more advanced than Neolithic and Bronze Age people. But the author of Genesis saying "fruit trees yield fruits", show that was the limits of his intelligent in regarding to agriculture, the author has an education of a moron. Even Neolithic illiterate farmers knew more than that.

And Genesis 1:21 and 1:25 are the same. Only idiots would find "science" in these verses.

They lacked explanatory details about animals.

It doesn't tell you about the anatomy and physiology of each species of animals. Genesis doesn't tell you where they live (e.g. jungles, rainforest, desert, mountains, tundra regions, etc), what their diets are, what are their life expectancy, how often and when do they mate and produce offspring (just the one, or in their hundreds),

Not all birds can fly (e.g. Emus, ostriches, chicken, kiwis, penguins, etc) and some creatures that can fly are not birds (e.g. bats, flies, mosquitoes, etc). Not every creatures that can swim are fishes (e.g. whales, dolphins, crocodiles, turtles...and did I not already mention penguins?)

The verses tell us nothing about the "biology", and they don't tell us about it habits.

Saying that god created them from nothing - like they weren't there before, then in an instance, they are all there, with all there kinds - that's like magic, supernatural...well, that's not science, that's myth and God-did-it superstition.

So please, tell me, which moronic scientists truly think your verses have scientific merits? Perhaps, these "scientists" were these so-called self-titled "creationist scientists"?

>>Now can you name a single scientist who agree those verses you have quoted are "scientific"?<<

I didn't get past your first sentence until I went Hillary and got sleepy. Did you understand what I said? I said the Bible is not a science book or else people would not have understood it in the early century. Thus, it is making a statement that Genesis is true. So far, biogenesis is the best theory to explain what happened and isn't that how science works?

 

[james bond]

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense... Science does not back up this idea at all.
Surely you have to realize that what you're referring to is simply "magic". A whole tree, grew out of the Earth, without a seed and without a simpler tree-like organism preceding it in lineage. That's what you're saying. That's ridiculous.

http://www.bomengids.nl/uk/tree-evolution.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants

http://forestry.about.com/od/ancientforests/a/Evolution-Of-Forests-And-Trees.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/paleo...onilophytes/cladoxylopsida/pseudosporochnales
https://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133293&org=NSF




A description written by nomads of a world that they understood - this does not in any way reflect the actual nature of reality or of biology.
If this Biblical description is accurate, then evidence of this would be present in the fossil record. It is not.



You do realize, I hope, that the "winged birds of the air" would not have air to fly through (or breathe) were it not for the millions of years of plant respiration by billions upon billions of cyanobacteria which must have predated them... The same is true of the marine ecosystems that would have had to be in place ahead of time in order to support the fish and "creatures of the sea" in order for them to survive.

Have you really never bothered to ask yourself where the water and air came from? Isn't that something that 3 year olds ponder when they're staring out the window on a drive through the woods to grandma's house?



God took entirely complex and differentiated organisms and placed them into environments that he had preconstructed to support their existence, but for some reason we don't consider those more primitive organisms, the very basis of Ecological energy transfer, to be as important to the story...Perhaps explaining how and why more complex organisms were able to evovle and survive would help you understand why your Biblical assertion is just looney.

http://eschooltoday.com/ecosystems/ecosystem-trophic-levels.html



And how, pray tell, can you achieve a complex genetic code without first having a primitive and simpler one?

Also, what is reproductive integrity?
Also, what is a kind?

All life - all organisms - are of the "living" kind. So, isn't fair to argue, using your own logic, that life can adapt and change into other forms of life? Simple mosses can evolve into simple grasses, which can evolve into simple bushes, which can evolve into simple trees, which can evolve into redwood forests? Can't grass evolve into vegetable?

Do you like corn? I sure do, especially on the grill! Did you know it is an evolved organism, changed over just a few generations through artificial selection from what was essentially a wheat grass into the vegetable that you and I know and love today?

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/breeding-corn-teosinte

Those are nice charts, but your charts do not prove that everything started from a seed. You probably understand how complex a seed is, but may not understand the charts are just advertising used to fit the ToE and make people believe in it.

The Bible stated the first adult tree just appeared one day and later someone discovered something new. Isn't that what I said? The simple explanation is best when reading the Bible. It isn't ridiculous at all and answers why humans have not been able to create a blade of grass.

 

[james bond]

Your patience is admirable.

There you are. Where jonathan180iq made his mistake is thinking his "science" explains it all when it is not what happened at all. Otherwise, he sounds like a smart man and is able to explain evolution admirably. It's why today we have creation science vs evolution science. Evolution science is that which is nonsense, but throughout history people believed in scientific nonsense until proven wrong. The Bible can't change, is not a science book and yet science has backed up the Bible. I would surmise jonathan180iq would say that is the way science works and I agree, except his science today will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible, creation or the supernatural. Thus, the creation scientists can't get published in Nature or Science and they do peer-review each other's work..

Some of the nonsense you probably believe is "science" is anthropologic global warming or climate change. Creation scientists would say real climate change is Noah's Flood. That was God-made and the greatest climate change of all time. How do I know which one is more right when it's conflicting science? I studied both. I believed in evolution using evolution.berkeley.edu, but found during the early millennium that evolution doesn't provide the answers. While jonathan180iq is a smart person, he does not explain how this seed came to be nor is able to prove his theory by experiment. Do you have an explanation how the seed came to be? Quid pro quo. I answered your question, so please answer mine. What I found is evolution just repeats itself and drums into your head that it's science and it is the best theory to explain it all. However, it's evidence made to fit the theory instead of a theory made to fit the evidence. Then I started really reading the Bible in 2012 and found creation science and that it answers my questions better than evolution.berkeley.edu. Thus, if you ask me which is the better science, it is the one I am going with.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There you are. Where jonathan180iq made his mistake is thinking his "science" explains it all when it is not what happened at all. Otherwise, he sounds like a smart man and is able to explain evolution admirably. It's why today we have creation science vs evolution science. Evolution science is that which is nonsense, but throughout history people believed in scientific nonsense until proven wrong. The Bible can't change, is not a science book and yet science has backed up the Bible. I would surmise jonathan180iq would say that is the way science works and I agree, except his science today will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible, creation or the supernatural. Thus, the creation scientists can't get published in Nature or Science and they do peer-review each other's work..

Some of the nonsense you probably believe is "science" is anthropologic global warming or climate change. Creation scientists would say real climate change is Noah's Flood. That was God-made and the greatest climate change of all time. How do I know which one is more right when it's conflicting science? I studied both. I believed in evolution using evolution.berkeley.edu, but found during the early millennium that evolution doesn't provide the answers. While jonathan180iq is a smart person, he does not explain how this seed came to be nor is able to prove his theory by experiment. Do you have an explanation how the seed came to be? Quid pro quo. I answered your question, so please answer mine. What I found is evolution just repeats itself and drums into your head that it's science and it is the best theory to explain it all. However, it's evidence made to fit the theory instead of a theory made to fit the evidence. Then I started really reading the Bible in 2012 and found creation science and that it answers my questions better than evolution.berkeley.edu. Thus, if you ask me which is the better science, it is the one I am going with.

You don't either. "God did it" is not an explanation.

 

[Sapiens]

Do you have an explanation how the seed came to be? Quid pro quo.

Do you have an explanation how your god came to be? Quid pro quo.

 

[Vorkosigan]

There you are. Where jonathan180iq made his mistake is thinking his "science" explains it all when it is not what happened at all. Otherwise, he sounds like a smart man and is able to explain evolution admirably. It's why today we have creation science vs evolution science. Evolution science is that which is nonsense, but throughout history people believed in scientific nonsense until proven wrong. The Bible can't change, is not a science book and yet science has backed up the Bible. I would surmise jonathan180iq would say that is the way science works and I agree, except his science today will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible, creation or the supernatural. Thus, the creation scientists can't get published in Nature or Science and they do peer-review each other's work..

Some of the nonsense you probably believe is "science" is anthropologic global warming or climate change. Creation scientists would say real climate change is Noah's Flood. That was God-made and the greatest climate change of all time. How do I know which one is more right when it's conflicting science? I studied both. I believed in evolution using evolution.berkeley.edu, but found during the early millennium that evolution doesn't provide the answers. While jonathan180iq is a smart person, he does not explain how this seed came to be nor is able to prove his theory by experiment. Do you have an explanation how the seed came to be? Quid pro quo. I answered your question, so please answer mine. What I found is evolution just repeats itself and drums into your head that it's science and it is the best theory to explain it all. However, it's evidence made to fit the theory instead of a theory made to fit the evidence. Then I started really reading the Bible in 2012 and found creation science and that it answers my questions better than evolution.berkeley.edu. Thus, if you ask me which is the better science, it is the one I am going with.

You don’t get it. Science (the method) is not a source of ideas or an idea on itself. It doesn’t give answers to anything in particular. It only eliminates less plausible ideas (hypotheses) based on empirical evidence. That’s why the knowledge changes, because new ideas that refute or complement the previous ones get proven to be not-wrong.
That’s how we've got medicine, interplanetary exploration, communications at the speed of light, etc. IT WORKS

 

[jonathan180iq]

Those are nice charts, but your charts do not prove that everything started from a seed.

You are correct - they merely summarize the enormous amounts of data sets that have gone into the study of plant evolution, specifically trees, and reproduce it in an easy-to-follow chart which has keywords written up and down the length of it. If there is anything that you'd like to know about any of the stages of development that our modern trees went through before reaching their current form, all you need to do is google those words and educate yourself. The chart is an aid - the links are the supporting information which help to augment and explain what you're looking at in the chart.

You probably understand how complex a seed is, but may not understand the charts are just advertising used to fit the ToE and make people believe in it.

No - it's "advertising" what has been discovered in the field of plant evolution.
Complex things are merely a combination of several lesser complexities.
For example, what is water without hydrogen? What is it without oxygen? Where did those less complex ingredients come from? How did they form? What more primitive thing are they made of?

he Bible stated the first adult tree just appeared one day and later someone discovered something new.

It states that because the people who wrote the Bible didn't know any better...If they were told that this is how trees came to be, then God conveniently misled them, causing them believe something that wasn't true. Nothing, "just came to be one day". Everything that you'll ever experience in life had a precursor event to it. Everything.

You did not just come to be one day. There is a whole story about why and how your parents got together, completely independent of you. That's a fact. Your knowledge of ignorance of those events will never change the fact that they happened. This thought experiment can be applied to absolutely everything, ever.

The simple explanation is best when reading the Bible.

There's a reason for that...

It isn't ridiculous at all and answers why humans have not been able to create a blade of grass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckard_Wimmer

Not having done something is very different from not being able to do something...

It takes time to figure things out. There was once a period in our history when humanity felt powerless to combat the natural forces around us, dying from illnesses that today we barely sneeze at (pun intended.) Not even cancer is the immediate death sentence that it once was - all of this is because of discovery, innovation, and pragmatic application of what we know, knowledge which we've attained through science.

Some of the nonsense you probably believe is "science" is anthropologic global warming or climate change. Creation scientists would say real climate change is Noah's Flood. That was God-made and the greatest climate change of all time. How do I know which one is more right when it's conflicting science?

This, right here, is why Creationists don't get published in peer-reviewed publications...

If the deluge of Genesis was a factual event, it would be evidenced somewhere in the geologic record. We can nail down local floods in Mesopotamia 7,000 years ago but we can't find evidence of a global flood or of human genetic bottlenecks, which must have existed were the story of Noah accurate. Why isn't there evidence for such an event? A creationist scientist or organization that could actually produce such evidence would change the world forever. But, alas, they never have. And I'll wager that they never will.

While jonathan180iq is a smart person, he does not explain how this seed came to be nor is able to prove his theory by experiment. Do you have an explanation how the seed came to be?

http://earthsky.org/earth/how-did-the-first-plant-seeds-evolve

You can very easily refute this if you think that the explanations of seed evolution are simply produced to fit a specific "theory" - This challenge applies to you and to any accredited Creation scientist who has a problem with current biological assertions. Produce for me (and for the entire world) evidence of an angiosperm or a gymnosperm existing deeper in the fossil record than we currently know of. Show us a seeded plant that was not preceded by a spore-bearing plant, for example, historically. It's really as simple as that. As with anything, just show us physical evidence of more complex organisms preserved in a strata that they otherwise should not be in...

Can you do that?

If trees just appeared one day, as per the Bible, why do we see clear evidence of them NOT doing that? Why do we find gymnosperms much higher in the geologic timeline than, say, the first ferns? Why are ferns predated by bryophytes? Why don't we find these before we find green and red algae? Why do we find cyanobacteria predating all of it?

These are simple questions.
If the Bible is correct, cyanobacteria and seeded, ancient, flowering plants should be found along side them, shouldn't they? If things were just miraculously created mature, why don't we find evidence of that?

What I found is evolution just repeats itself and drums into your head that it's science and it is the best theory to explain it all. However, it's evidence made to fit the theory instead of a theory made to fit the evidence.

Please see the challenge above

Then I started really reading the Bible in 2012 and found creation science and that it answers my questions better than evolution.berkeley.edu. Thus, if you ask me which is the better science, it is the one I am going with.

Evolution isn't a fact because I say it is. It's not a fact because I like it better. It's not a fact because there are more people who claim that it is...

It's a fact because it"s evidenced.
It was an idea, formed through questioning and observation, that turned out to hit the nail on the head in every other biologic endeavor that we encountered. It's not a conspiracy and it's not an anti-religious movement. It's only a threat to faith when that faith is based on something that it shouldn't be.

Personally, I'd suggest you think about that last part for a minute.

Complex things cannot exist without less complex things coming before it... This is not a crazy idea. You can't bake a cake without accumulating lots of non-cake material first. Cakes don't just appear, fully baked and covered in icing.

I would surmise jonathan180iq would say that is the way science works and I agree, except his science today will not peer-review anything to do with the Bible, creation or the supernatural.

I assure you that if the "science" produced by creationists was not biased nonsense that it would get the same attention as everything else. There are plenty of crackpot scientists who have tried to get their work published in scientific journals and it was rejected because their work or their premise was flawed, they just couldn't see it. It's not the fault of the greater body of science that some people are delusional.

If I wrote a scientific paper attempting to deliver my findings on how and why Prometheus delivered fire to humanity after stealing it from Zeus, you would laugh in my face. My inability to see the flaw in my study would not be your fault, would it? It wouldn't be a conspiracy against Hellenistic Polytheism, would it? You would reject that paper because it would have been founded on a foolish and biased premise. However, if the content of that study somehow definitively proved that Prometheus was a factual being, and that Zeus was real and that he kept fire from people for a long time, and that a gift was once give to someone and that's how man forever had light, then we could begin to talk about the vast conspiracy of science to cover up the truth... But that's not at all what's happening, is it?

Thus, the creation scientists can't get published in Nature or Science and they do peer-review each other's work..

The purpose of peer-review is to try and find flaws in someone else's work. It's to hold people and their findings accountable. It's to week out bad information and keep only the good. It's a built-in corrective tool. It's actually better for science as a while when people are wrong. Being wrong means we've eliminated a variable when trying to solve a huge equation.

Do you not find it odd that all of the creationist peer reviews conveniently agree with each other? Does that really not signal any red flags for you?