Prove to me that Creation is false.

[BassDude726]

Actually, there is some credibility to the actual flood. At the end of the Ice Age, when the sea levels were rising, it is suspected that the Mediterranean Basin filled incredibly rapidly, through a massive cataract where the strait of Gibraltar is now. While this is in human prehistory, it would have made a huge impression on those who saw it and survived, and would have been passed down through generations over centuries by oral tradition. It's not unlikely that the flood story came from this.

But that really has nothing to do with creationism...

 

[Pointlessness]

To Perfection and everyone else trying to explain science to creationists: it is futile. Creationists tend to ignore all scientific evidence that does not agree with them. Hell, I bet they have absolutely no idea on what you are talking about. That is because they prefer to remain unaware of the truth, trapped in their corner of darkness and ignorance. Their religious bubble shelters them from science, history, and logic. Not to worry, though. I believe religion will eventually die out in several centuries and milleniums, due to some historical trends.

To all the creationists in these forums: prove me wrong! There is a link to a challenge for you in my signature. Click on it, make a point.

 

[Perfection]

Sorry that would be difficult the book is 518 p. small print, with eatch article providing between 10-20 pages of proof and argument. (some of the more complex arguments are more in the area of 50 pages) I can't simply grab a single sentence out of the book and prove to you evolution is unlikely, probably untrue. If you are really interested go read it for yourself, you got eyes.

I'll make ya a pact, I'll read it (Provided I can get a copy) if you read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."

And evolutionist scientist, working with evolutionist dating tell us this. There is not a single shred of evolutionist evidence that is not laughable when we use our creation, young earth, rapid worldwide flood theory, as a basis.

Well, let's start with the basics, please disprove potassium-argon dating.

No, I'm trusting creation scientists who were almost unanamously evolutionist, until the FACTS jumped out at them. I have never heard a single preacher talk about this in a sermon.

I'm basing parts of my ideas off the works of Darwin was creationist until the FACTS jumped out at him!

More comin'

 

[crystal]

To Perfection and everyone else trying to explain science to creationists: it is futile. Creationists tend to ignore all scientific evidence that does not agree with them. Hell, I bet they have absolutely no idea on what you are talking about. That is because they prefer to remain unaware of the truth, trapped in their corner of darkness and ignorance. Their religious bubble shelters them from science, history, and logic. Not to worry, though. I believe religion will eventually die out in several centuries and milleniums, due to some historical trends.

My thoughts exactly! It's a shame how some people were just brainwashed so fundamentally.

 

[Smidlee]

One of the problem with Evolution (and also even some Creation) science that it assumes God doesn't still has his hands in his creation. Then there are some who would say that it looks like God is trying to deceive us according to what we know but it is God fooling us or is it really we are fooling ourselves thinking we can uncover the great mysteries of the past? I believe we are fooling ourselves yet claiming if we not right then blaming God for our own deception. It seems to me that most science like evolution and cosmology is usually deal with very little actual facts built upon a lot of assumptions.
Again these kind of threads seems to end up as "My scientist can beat up your scientist" just like a child saying "My dad can beat up your dad" Who knows even if evolution thoery will be around in the next century. Of course this theory continues to change with the facts but ever time you change the story bring more doubts on the theory itself which will obviously produces more and more sceptics.

 

[Chingis Khan]

One of the problem with Evolution (and also even some Creation) science that it assumes God doesn't still has his hands in his creation. Then there are some who would say that it looks like God is trying to deceive us according to what we know but it is God fooling us or is it really we are fooling ourselves thinking we can uncover the great mysteries of the past? I believe we are fooling ourselves yet claiming if we not right then blaming God for our own deception. It seems to me that most science like evolution and cosmology is usually deal with very little actual facts built upon a lot of assumptions.

Hmmm, and all this time I thought that scientists started with discovering those pesky 'facts' and then building assumptions on them.
But the creationist scientists at ICR actually have tenants that proclaim that they start with the 'truth' and then look for facts to back them up. Only one of the many reasons they cannot be taken for scientists of any kind.

Again these kind of threads seems to end up as "My scientist can beat up your scientist" just like a child saying "My dad can beat up your dad" Who knows even if evolution thoery will be around in the next century. Of course this theory continues to change with the facts but ever time you change the story bring more doubts on the theory itself which will obviously produces more and more sceptics.

The theory of evolution is quite solidly established, just as the theory of relativity or the nuclear theory is. The mistake you are making is in the use of the word theory. For example, if I were to say that I have a theory Bush is crazy or that Nostradamus predicted 9/11, that would be open to debate. But when science uses the term theory, it is much, much more. Closer to law then just an idea based on a few random facts. Another mistake you are making is in thinking that the evolutionists are arguing about the theory when they are not. They argue about the mechanics of the theory. The only sceptics are those who don't research anything for themselves and listen mindlessly to any argument, based on reality or not, and end up getting confused.

 

[Akka]

Well, my post on the other thread is fitting for this one too.
Allow me to copy and paste :


Urgh... Again one evolution thread...


Let's keep it simple : Creationists accept all the scientifics theories, concepts and products, (even much less obvious ones than evolution), UNLESS it opposes their beliefs, at which time they claim it's absurd.

It's called an emotionnal blocking. It means that someone psychologically refuse (most of the time, inconsciously) to believe something, because he doesn't want to, at a level or another of consciousness. No amount of reason and logic can change this.
If someone were actually open to reason and logic on this subject, he would not believe in Creation. So reason and logic won't have any effect on his opinion (as he's already impervious to them on this point). No point in trying.

Ergo, it's useless to try to convince a creationist. Emotionnal blocks can only go with emotionnal evolution.
Anyway, except in USA, Creationists are on the verge of extinction. Don't bother with them, they're already history. Just shrug, point some scientific sources to them, and then let them sink in their ignorance, or evolve enough to get past their blocking.

 

[Perfection]

I need a life...

The dating of rocks and bones does nothing to prove or disprove Creationism. So freely saying that this bone is 80,000 years old is based on no evidence. The oldest that evidence goes back is 5,000 years old about, although I believe the earth is about 6,500 years old, because 1,500 years can make a big difference, when you're not dealing with millions and billions. Freely using the word facts when you morons are referring to crackpot theories is worse than saying there is a fairy kingdom.

Try again, there has been numerous datings that give values of rocks well into the billions of years.

Always you morons compare Genesis to a fairy tale and think you're being the intellectual here. Always you morons say "saying there's god is saying there's a magical elf-land", but who does saying god mean that you believe in elves? Instead of trying to say something half-way relevant, you just use the word facts when talking about seriously flawed (sp?) theories and think you're on the side of the truth. You just say the same things: "oh yeah, well people with glasses and labcoats say the universe is 15+ billion years old, ha-ha!".

Umm, potassium-argon dating is a fact, you want to dispute that? Go ahead!

Believing that the universe just came out of nothing and comparing myth-based Greek philosophical theories and Catholicalism's attempt to divert the possible science funds to more taxes proves that you are the moron. To call Christians trusting only in faith and you uniformitarians on the side of science (does every uniformitarian moron forget the phrase religious science), you are just ignoring the fact that you must have ENORMOUS faith in theories by people who witnessed nothing and are making theories about things that we can't get close to (the universe, for one) is trully ming-boggling.!

Mind boggling doesn't mean we can't glean some good information about it, should gravity be thrown out because of that arguement, no, because it is clearly a mechanism through which the universe works, same with evolution! As for calling us morons, clearly you should understand that evolution doesn't explain the universe came from nothing, it says nothing about the origin of the universe, it talks about how life developed from a common origin. As for complexity should we try to understand it or just say "If I don't understand it, then god must have made it" I don't understand TV reality shows, but sure as hell god didn't create that (Unless you want to contend that god is a sadistic SOB).

All of the "evidence" of evolution are either made-up or patched together from the two animals they want to be prove evolved.

1. All the evidence just wasn't "made up" believe it or not:
There is a fossil record showing a common origin
There is a vestigial structures showing a common origin
There is a chemical/genetic correspondance showing a common origin
There is a and explanitory structure with mechanisms that have been shown to work showing a common origin
I would go on, but you get the point
2. Evolution applies to plants, protists, fungi, archaea and bacteria too, let's not show too much ignorance!

There has been no discoveries of any links between two species beyond already existing species that still cannot be proven as a link.

Umm, that sentance was poorly worded; I have no idea what you're trying to say! I'll just mention that we've observed speciation, and there are transitional fossils and hope that's enough to placate you

Just because most animals have legs and a lot of legs look alike doesn't mean they all evolved from one thing.

No, but the commanility of structure of the legs of animals within the same phylum coupled with DNA/Chemical linkages, Evo-Devo correspondances and fossils and other stuff that I can't think of right off the bat does!

The foundation of the universe and living beings (like DNA, which stores information better than any computer ever to be made) is too complicated to have come out of nothing.

You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis again, evolution goes to the common ancestor, abiogenesis shows how it came from the conditions on early earth, cosmology shows how earth came from the stardust, big bang theory shows that stars come from a single tiny point. No science claims that the big bang came from nothing. So you see, your arguement has no weight!

Tell me how you can call yourself reasonable and believe in theories involving billions of years and theories with no witnessed evidence.

I can't, that's why I don't believe in those thoeries. However since evolution has a plethora of witnessed evidence I come to believe it as true!

Well I can't "prove" its untrue, unlike evolutionist I am not so brain dead as to claim proof to something that is by its very nature unprovable by science.

When evolutionists use proof we use it in the same way that courts do, sort of the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" mentality that the American court system uses. Sure we cannot logically declare that it is 100% pefectly true, but the evidence can be used to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. As for calling evolutionists brain-dead, well I agree that some are, like the great Stephan Jay Gould and Charles Darwin. Of course, they all wrote thier books before they were brain dead and frankly numerous christians are brain dead too, even Albert Einstien is brain dead!

The evidence against Darwin's theories are not found in the Bible. The big picture simply is the fact that evolution couldn't work in actuality.

You want to back that statement up?

Pefection just laid down a devastating hail of fire that few religionists would want to be caught in!

Nice post, man!

Just doing my duty!

Quite frankly, I don't understand at all the "logic" of these creationists.

That makes two of us!

To Perfection and everyone else trying to explain science to creationists: it is futile. Creationists tend to ignore all scientific evidence that does not agree with them. Hell, I bet they have absolutely no idea on what you are talking about. That is because they prefer to remain unaware of the truth, trapped in their corner of darkness and ignorance. Their religious bubble shelters them from science, history, and logic. Not to worry, though. I believe religion will eventually die out in several centuries and milleniums, due to some historical trends.

Call me an idealist, but I think some of the younger creationists can be "shown the light" so to speak. Anyways, I think that having evolutionists appear logical in debates will convince those on the fence such as

To all the creationists in these forums: prove me wrong! There is a link to a challenge for you in my signature. Click on it, make a point.

I will be most impressed if any of you creationists pass the challange, if you pass, ummmm, well give me your address and I'll send you a dollar. (No purchase neccesary, offer expires June 22 2005, first 5 winners only, offer only good for anti-evolutionary creationists who have at least 15 posts on CFC)

 

[Smidlee]

Hmmm, and all this time I thought that scientists started with discovering those pesky 'facts' and then building assumptions on them.
But the creationist scientists at ICR actually have tenants that proclaim that they start with the 'truth' and then look for facts to back them up. Only one of the many reasons they cannot be taken for scientists of any kind.

I didn't know about ICR until 6 months ago. Evolution scientist are not different than the creationists when it come to this. They both first makes a assumption then try to look for facts to back their assumptions. EX. First they assumed man evolved from a ape (if these creature was around today they would still be called apes) then go out trying to find bones to back their assumptions. They have found many skulls of apes and man in many shapes and sizes and then try to line them up according to their assumption. Even if they was a creature in the pass that was between an ape and a human it still doesn't necessary means this creature evolved into a human or ape.

The theory of evolution is quite solidly established, just as the theory of relativity or the nuclear theory is. The mistake you are making is in the use of the word theory. For example, if I were to say that I have a theory Bush is crazy or that Nostradamus predicted 9/11, that would be open to debate. But when science uses the term theory, it is much, much more. Closer to law then just an idea based on a few random facts. Another mistake you are making is in thinking that the evolutionists are arguing about the theory when they are not. They argue about the mechanics of the theory. The only sceptics are those who don't research anything for themselves and listen mindlessly to any argument, based on reality or not, and end up getting confused.

The theory of evolution is solidly established because science pushes it but it doesn't make it reality. Theories help us to try to understand the world around us but none of these theory are absolutes. there is areas that even the theory of relatively is questioned. Even this theory was to help out where Isaac Newton law of physics seem to fail.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I have an idea on how we can settle this argument once and for all. CurtSibling vs. God in a steel metal cage battle to the death! I am sure Curt will be more than willing. Unfortunately, Charles Darwin is unavailable for this event. Now we only have to find God... Anyone have any ideas where to start looking? *knocks on door to Fantasyland*

 

[Perfection]

One of the problem with Evolution (and also even some Creation) science that it assumes God doesn't still has his hands in his creation. Then there are some who would say that it looks like God is trying to deceive us according to what we know but it is God fooling us or is it really we are fooling ourselves thinking we can uncover the great mysteries of the past? I believe we are fooling ourselves yet claiming if we not right then blaming God for our own deception. It seems to me that most science like evolution and cosmology is usually deal with very little actual facts built upon a lot of assumptions.

I disagree, science deals with the assumption that trends and mechanisms based upon fact are true until proven, if there seems to be a trend and its explainable take it to its logical conclusion. There seems to be no evidence of god tampering with science so there is little reason to bring that to the table, we could be wrong, but there's no evidence to support that. As for few factsm cosmology is built on levels of physics so insanely complex that you need years upon years of education to understand it, that's a lot of facts, likewise with evolution.

However creationists just asserts that god did it.

Again these kind of threads seems to end up as "My scientist can beat up your scientist" just like a child saying "My dad can beat up your dad"

I dispise that when it occurs, that is why I try to assert my views of it instead of hiding behind a wall of citations, I may site some examples of evidence, but I try to use my logical as the force of debate not the logic of others.

Who knows even if evolution thoery will be around in the next century. Of course this theory continues to change with the facts but ever time you change the story bring more doubts on the theory itself which will obviously produces more and more sceptics.

I disagree, I think the more it changes the stronger it becomes, this is because all science is incomplete, Newton was incomplete, Darwin was incomplete, but the relevance of thier thoeries theories live on, newtonian mechanics works wonderfully to explain lots of things, so does Strict-Darwinism (That's Darwinian evolution unmodified from Darwin's works) however they were incomplete. Don't think of science as a process of knocking down an old thoery and putting up a new one, like some overzelous process of urban renewal but as a process of adding an extension to a thoery much like adding a wing to a building enhances the rest of it rather than detracts.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

When we look at the nations of the past Cush, Egypt,Hittite, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Rome,...ect. We see a striking resemblance of there fate, they were each conquered by Religionists, expect Cush who was a follower of Ham and Noah. When Allah speaks about “the people before you were much more power”. He is referring to the nations that shunned religion and adopted their own laws, also Allah’s referring to the religionist nations that came before Islam; and telling the Muslims that if you stay strong, Allah well rise you prestige and wealth and give you unlimited power on the world stage.

The nations that kid themselves into thinking that Allah will ever catch up with them, are just trying to fill that vacuum that god once filled for them, Satan has fooled man into thinking that Allah is our enemy but in fact it is Satan who is our soul enemy. Satan has sworn to Allah that he will fool mankind into believing that we can do things our self’s and do not need Allah, and finally Satan will prove to Allah that mankind is not worthy of prostrating down to and thus in effect putting most of mankind in hell fire as a trophy of his accomplishment.

We need to shape up as a race and begin our journey back to the creator, and reclaim our destiny. We need to use Science in the right way, and not commercialise on other people's misery, but drive mankind into a golden age of love respect and more love. World peace is not possible until the people agree that mankind is one family, and one race and not recognise all these U.N borders that plague this world. We need a Religionist federation.

Mankind is an amazing race I must say.

 

[Perfection]

I didn't know about ICR until 6 months ago. Evolution scientist are not different than the creationists when it come to this. They both first makes a assumption then try to look for facts to back their assumptions. EX. First they assumed man evolved from a ape (if these creature was around today they would still be called apes) then go out trying to find bones to back their assumptions. They have found many skulls of apes and man in many shapes and sizes and then try to line them up according to their assumption. Even if they was a creature in the pass that was between an ape and a human it still doesn't necessary means this creature evolved into a human or ape.

However when creationists find thier assumptions false they ignore the implications when evolutionists find it, they modify their theory to accomodate it.

By the way, the ape thing is really just a nomenclature thing, ape refers to a member of the family Pongidae. We're in the family Hominidae. The common origin of all species within Pongidae eventually gave rise to the join ancestor of us and Chimps, I suspect that would be in Pongidae and so be an ape, but I'm no taxonomist. Really what evolutionists object to is the notion that they came from a modern living species.

The theory of evolution is solidly established because science pushes it but it doesn't make it reality. Theories help us to try to understand the world around us but none of these theory are absolutes. there is areas that even the theory of relatively is questioned. Even this theory was to help out where Isaac Newton law of physics seem to fail.

Ah yes, VLS theories, they seem to be a bit loony (not to say that they are wrong, but that the proposers are kinda funny characters). But if you look at all those thoeries the power of them still stands. Newtonian mechanics still is valid, so is relativistic. Darwin's picture of evolution as been changed a huge amount with such things as hierarchal theories and punctuated equillibrium, but there is still much validity to his original statements. Besides, should we throw out the power of theories because they might be incomplete, I think not!

 

[Perfection]

@Ham-Babs, ummm, you're calling religion the answer to non-violence?!?!

Not only is that a complete threadjack but it's simply wrong, who blew up the WTC? Religionists did! Who slayed countless in the crusades? Religionists did!

Now not to say that non-religious can't be brutal too (The U.S.S.R. comes to mind) but let's not get so hung up on religionists being so rightous, because they ain't! The key to world peace lies not in forcing your opinions on others but being able to discuss them openly! That's where peace comes from, freedom!

 

[Shadylookin]

Reverend shady is here to shed forth some light.

for the biblebeaters here

1
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
2
the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
3
Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4
God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.
5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day.
6
Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened:
7
God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
8
God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day.
9
Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.
10
God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was.
11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened:
12
the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.
13
Evening came, and morning followed--the third day.
14
Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years,
15
and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened:
16
God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars.
17
God set them in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth,
18
to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was.

first biblegod created darkness and light. Then he created plants. then he created the sun.

earth was made I'll let this slide even though scientist have evidence that suggest that the sun came first and that the planets are the left overs from the sun. The kicker is that plants cannot live without light. You may say that it was only without light for one day. But the only source for heat is from the sun which is also the only source for light and it wasn't made until the next day. Plant can obviously not live without the heat of the sun. I say I have just sufficiently proven creationism wrong. If you still wish to believe in it then may curt have mercy on your non-existant soul.

 

[King Alexander]

I have an idea on how we can settle this argument once and for all. CurtSibling vs. God in a steel metal cage battle to the death! I am sure Curt will be more than willing. Unfortunately, Charles Darwin is unavailable for this event. Now we only have to find God... Anyone have any ideas where to start looking? *knocks on door to Fantasyland*

Yes!!! Bravo SuperBeaverInc. Curtsibling vs God in a steel metal cage battle to the death!!! Guess WHO wouldn't want to die and lose his worshipers!!! Only with force we would be able to take God inside the metal cage!!!

 

[classical_hero]

I'm Back. Sorry for taking so long but if you notice my time zone you'll notice that my post was at 1:00am my time in Perth, and looking at the time of the replies I was asleep so I couldn't have know how quickly the replies would have been. Also I only have dial-up at the moment so it is no possible for me to on the net all the time, but hopefully we'll soon have broadband. So here is my reply to all you doubters.

We can still se the effects of creation as against evolution. We see that animals procreate after their own kind. We have never seen a fish evolve to a monkey. A fish wish make more fish. That is basic biology. Denying that will be denying 2+2=4. For something to be proven you must have seen it with things that can be seen, not somthing that has not been proven. If you see that happen then I'll gladly admit you are right. But that is why Evolution is called a theory because it can never be proven. The only way you could prove the start of life is if you where their at the beginning, which noone on earth has, so stop say this has been proven beyond doubt. If you have not seen it then don't believe it. Believing things you have not seen is what faith is. This is why Evolution is just as much a Religion as is Christianity, which is the main Religion to teach it, their are others that believe in Creation also.

Their are many example in nature that seem to prove that many of the so-called evolutionary steps are false. Their is the Dinosaur footprint that also happened to have a man's footprint inside it. Their is a fossiled whole tree that is stand upright that cuts through all the layers in the rock that are supposedly layer that occured over millions of years. The Platypus is an animal that confounded Evolutions for years and was even thought that someone stiched up a few animals together just to hoax them.

The proves that people want on this subject really must come by faith, whether it is on the side of Evolution or Creation. It is for you to make up your own minds to what you believe.

 

[col]

We can still se the effects of creation as against evolution. We see that animals procreate after their own kind. We have never seen a fish evolve to a monkey. A fish wish make more fish. That is basic biology. Denying that will be denying 2+2=4.

So many misconceptions here (pun intended) . You seem to have little concept of the time scale over which evolution operates or even understand the basic idea of evolutionary change. If something takes ten million years, I'm not likely to see it, am I? You dont seem to accept that examples of evolution have been observed. Read the thread for examples. Large changes take a long time. Small changes can happen more quickly. Perhaps you need to study basic biology again.

For something to be proven you must have seen it with things that can be seen, not somthing that has not been proven. If you see that happen then I'll gladly admit you are right. But that is why Evolution is called a theory because it can never be proven. The only way you could prove the start of life is if you where their at the beginning, which noone on earth has, so stop say this has been proven beyond doubt.

The purpose of science is not to prove anything. Such a thing is logically impossible. It is to disprove. No scientist says anything has been proved beyond all doubt. What scientists say is that this theory is consistent with all observations made to date.

If you have not seen it then don't believe it. Believing things you have not seen is what faith is. This is why Evolution is just as much a Religion as is Christianity, which is the main Religion to teach it, their are others that believe in Creation also.

Believing things for which there is of evidence requires faith. Accepting a theory that has an enormous amount of supproting evidence requires reason. Therein lies the difference.

The proves that people want on this subject really must come by faith, whether it is on the side of Evolution or Creation. It is for you to make up your own minds to what you believe.

No - the choice is rational reason or irrational faith.

 

[classical_hero]

So many misconceptions here (pun intended) . You seem to have little concept of the time scale over which evolution operates or even understand the basic idea of evolutionary change. No - the choice is rational reason or irrational faith.

So you didn't disprove my evidences yet have you. I always thought that evolution was a process that is contious, because people keep expecting us to evolve to something better, then why don't we see some results right now of that process.

 

[bigfatron]

So you didn't disprove my evidences yet have you. I always thought that evolution was a process that is contious, because people keep expecting us to evolve to something better, then why don't we see some results right now of that process.

I'm afraid that this just demonstrates that you don't understand evolution. Evolutionary change takes place over very many generations - for species with long generation cycles such as humankind, there has simply not been enough elapsed generations to observe evolution in practice.

However, in flora or fauna with very short generational cycles - some micorbes, insects or plants - evolution has most definitely been observed, and some of these examples are referred to earlier in the thread.

On the other hand, we can be absolutely sure that creation has not been observed, since even by your own admission it took place 6,000 years ago or more, and by its own statement there were no people present to observe it. So, by your own standard of evidence, there is absolutely no support for the creationist 'theory'.