The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

I think the point has been lost. I am not currently proposing scientific evidence for creation I am proposing the evidence for evolution is not scientific. Saying things like "what makes you think that the conditions of earth today at all match the conditions on a prebiotic earth? Because I'll give you a free tip right now: they do not." is not scientific evidence. To say that science explains everything through observable and experimental evidence and follows certain unbreakable laws to make it trustworthy, that is until it makes what you believe impossible without throwing out those very laws that science is built upon, again makes your argument completely unscientific. Any hypothesis that breaks the laws of science would be easily rejectable based upon that criteria alone. Again my problem is that hypotheses are being taught as theories and theories as laws without respect to the scientific method. So what if the theory of evolution violates certain scientific laws, we'll just say those laws didn't exist at certain times and then existed later, whatever suits our theories. This is not science, it is using a disprovable hypothesis to prove a theory.

If I had a hypothesis that stated that mixing sodium with chloride would yield sodium chloride I would test it. I would mix sodium and chloride and get sodium chloride and if I was able to repeat this experiment again and again observing the results and it always became sodium chloride you would allow me to change the hypothesis into a theory and perhaps a law. If I were to say to you that when I mix sodium and chloride I get water you would say there's no way. Then I would say sure it does, you have no idea how elements reacted together billions of years ago when sodium and chloride through the use of an energy source that is no longer available today were able to shed protons and electrons, change molecular shape and become hydrogen and oxygen and thus create water. You would correctly reject it as science. You may say that it's possible, that it's a theory, but not a theory as science defines a theory, a theory as in anything's possible.

"I've never seen it, therefore it's impossible" is a perfectly valid scientific statement. It must be observable to be scientific. You can make a hypothesis that something is possible but until you prove it according to the scientific method it is not possible.

Here's what it boils down to. Our criteria for proof is different. Yours is science, so be scientific. Mine is faith so I will be faithful. It's not science or God. Science is a means by which we explain the things that are happening around us. It may be a piece of the knowledge God uses to govern the natural world. My faith does not require scientific proof that is why it is called faith.

If you would like some scientific evidence there are men far more knowledgable on the subject than I but you could look into: In Siberia Russia (in the Tundra) there have been found at least 5 million elephant remains frozen solid in mud hundreds of feet thick. Some of the elephants are carried out as the great Russian rivers the Ob and the Yenisey slash through the tundra on the way to the Arctic Ocean. It has been found they (the elephants) had no erector muscles that would have protected them from Arctic weather. Some also have perfectly preserved tropical plant material in their stomachs. They were semi-tropical animals. They were quick frozen. A wind chill factor of 190 degrees below zero would be required to quick freeze these elephants. They were frozen, then covered in mud, then covered and buried in ice. While not of creation, here is some empirical evidence for the flood.