If "creation" merely refers to existence then you are correct. However if "creation" specifically means existence was created by the invisible magical Jewish wizard then Sub-Z was correct.OMG!!!!!!
I thought you were dumb the moment you took an atheistic stance; but that statement just slaps the f@ckin icing on the cake.
The only place where no evidence for creation exists, is in a place where absolutely nothing exists; YOU IDIOT!
It is lunacy to say that there is no evidence for creation; the only thing you can question as such, regarding the presence of structure, is what actually created it.
IF "There is no scientific evidence for creation."; then you cant prove that man has created anything?
The means by which you seek to deny the existence of God will be the very means used to deny your existence. Keep it up.
So it's the scientists fault for being able to come up with scientific concepts that work and it's also the scientist's fault that creationists can't?Thats because the education system is in favor of the secular. Hence it is too difficult and maybe even impossible to refute secular concepts using secular knowledge.
So its not that creation scientists are not willing to make a testable hypothesis of that nature; but rather that the system of knowledge does not allow them to do so.
So the nature of academics is to be blamed for that shortcoming, not creation scientists.
There's NOTHING STOPPING creationists from coming up with their own alternative system. They just simply CAN'T. And on top of that your boys have had a FOUR THOUSAND YEAR HEAD START.
That should tell you something.
You mean that book which talks of global floods, flat square Earth and talking lizards and donkeys? Those concepts I just mentioned are all in the Bible. They are also all incorrect.Obviously you have never read the Bible.