The evidence for creation is the fact that all the observable evidence is consistent with the Biblical account of the creation and the flood.
Who said were better?Still the logic is strange, why would not the other evolved apes disappear if we are "better"?
Personally, though this is a highly unscientific claim, I feel evolution makes no sense because we seem to "devolve" ,
we cause more damage to ourself and the environment than good.
Besides, kindly show me one single example of a GOOD mutation. The ones I know of lead to illnesses, not new species.
![]()
What you are saying is that the proof of creation is that there is a creator and the proof of a creator is that there is creation. That is circular logic and as such is a logical fallacyShort statement, may be a repeat,..
For most christians proof of creation is in fact a no brainer, (coming into the understanding of our Creator) we were created thus, such is sufficient evidence.
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
Edifyingly, reading the verse above (Romans 9:20 * 2011 NIV) had the epiphany that A creation is formed in the manner the creator intended, all while evolutionary speculations would imply a matter changing form over time, The aged human being today, I would say are no more gray haired than the first. However if some want to fall under the illusion that because some of God's creation has similar structural properties(primates/humans), that it means we were derived from there or somehow related (distant cousins?), that's the imperfectly mistaken man for ya'!
I am looking at that site - it is big so I will need time to completely check it out. What does worry me is that the site and its claims have been rubbished by other christian creationist sites - not a good startYou're right, I am a fool for wasting my time, because you set this up to be a waste. I already told you, if you want evidence, start the research yourself. I even gave you answersingenesis.org. If you don't like it, or it's not good enough for you, or if you don't deem it to be evidence, I don't care.
What you are saying is that the proof of creation is that there is a creator and the proof of a creator is that there is creation. That is circular logic and as such is a logical fallacy