Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 yea right. the entropy does not get lower. the hurricane affects everything around it, destroying everything within its power. go down to New Orleans, how high would you say the level of disorder is there? hurricane Katrina might have been a highly ordered storm, but that storm's low entropy had to affect something. the entropy in the areas around or affected by Katrina had a steep entropy rise.

Congratulations. You seem to have grasped the concept. Local decreases in entropy are possible when a corresponding increase in the surroundings are equal to or greater than the decrease. I think that the increase in the entropy in the surroundings of tornadoes and huricanes is much greater than the decrease in entropy that caused the formation of the hurricane or tornado.

Quote by: LetThereBe you are now saying that hurricanes don't affect anything.

I said no such thing. I said that a local decrease in entropy is possible in a thermodynamic system. Your question has already been asked and answered. A local decrease in entropy is possible when there is an equal or greater increase in entropy in another part of the system or in the surroundings. Do you actually have even the most elementary understanding of thermodynamics? Why haven't you answered the Thermo Test? Are you afraid? Or maybe you don't understand thermodynamics.

Quote by: LetThereBe I would like to hear you say that to someone from New Orleans. that is not an example of entropy decrease over all.

But I never made that claim. A hurricane or a tornado is an example of a decrease in entropy. That is not a claim that such spontaneous increases do not cause decreases in the surroundings.

I'm sorry if I confuse you with terms that you don't understand. I have been referring to systems and surroundings, which have specific meaning in thermodynamics.

Quote by: LetThereBe here is a comparison: if you take a refrigerator out of its slot in your kitchen and make it to where you can walk around it, you find a bunch of coils on the back. the reason that it is so cold in the fridge is because in order for the inner temperature to lower, the entropy inside has to drop, and that entropy goes into the coils in the back, as evidenced by the heat now in the coils. this system is a perfect example of energy conservation in progress.

What a perfect example of your misunderstanding of thermodynamics and entropy. Indeed, the compressor in my refrigerator transfers entropy to the air. Thus, items in the freezer do freeze and items in the refrigerator remain cold. But the entropy in my kitchen is increased. Were you actually trying to make a point?

Quote by: LetThereBe no matter what happens, the energy in the universe can never increase, nor decrease. no natural process can create or destroy energy.

Nice assertion. Can you offer some evidence that your assertion is true? Possibly it is an assumption.

Quote by: LetThereBe evolution and the Big Bang break that law.

Horsepuckey. Please present some evidence that either theory does so.

Quote by: LetThereBe evolution itself cannot fully explain all the highly complex processes that our bodies do.

Yes, it can.

Quote by: LetThereBe here is a doozie: the process used to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide in our lungs is so complex, it is easier for a man, shot out of a cannon, to carve the Lord's Prayer onto the head of a pin while he is passing by. i liked this article, thanks to the google ads on this, we can get quite a lot of information.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks. I needed a laugh. You're pretty much of a creationist dupe, aren't you? Wouldn't it be a good thing if you learned to think for yourself?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: gallo Congratulations. You seem to have grasped the concept. Local decreases in entropy are possible when a corresponding increase in the surroundings are equal to or greater than the decrease. I think that the increase in the entropy in the surroundings of tornadoes and huricanes is much greater than the decrease in entropy that caused the formation of the hurricane or tornado. I said no such thing. I said that a local decrease in entropy is possible in a thermodynamic system. Your question has already been asked and answered. A local decrease in entropy is possible when there is an equal or greater increase in entropy in another part of the system or in the surroundings. Do you actually have even the most elementary understanding of thermodynamics? Why haven't you answered the Thermo Test? Are you afraid? Or maybe you don't understand thermodynamics. But I never made that claim. A hurricane or a tornado is an example of a decrease in entropy. That is not a claim that such spontaneous increases do not cause decreases in the surroundings. I'm sorry if I confuse you with terms that you don't understand. I have been referring to systems and surroundings, which have specific meaning in thermodynamics. What a perfect example of your misunderstanding of thermodynamics and entropy. Indeed, the compressor in my refrigerator transfers entropy to the air. Thus, items in the freezer do freeze and items in the refrigerator remain cold. But the entropy in my kitchen is increased. Were you actually trying to make a point? Nice assertion. Can you offer some evidence that your assertion is true? Possibly it is an assumption. Horsepuckey. Please present some evidence that either theory does so. Yes, it can. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks. I needed a laugh. You're pretty much of a creationist dupe, aren't you? Wouldn't it be a good thing if you learned to think for yourself?

WTH!! I didn't say any of that!! You correct that right now. QUOTE THE RIGHT PERSON. I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS.

[gallo]

Quote by: LetThereBe Yes, I have heard such examples, and better ones. None of those contradict a true creationists view because they do not become different "kinds". The idea of biological species is sketchy. Just because creatures are reproductively isolated they are a new "species". However, the idea of a creature going from one subphyla (reptilia) to another (aves) is a different story. Or that man came from simians little different than the modern ape.

And you didn't pay attention the the "better ones." All of them contradict a "true creationist" view. I have been presenting those examples for about 20 years. At first, the response was silence. The "creationist view" was that speciation was impossible. At long last, creationists realized that the millions of species that exist today could not possibly have been crammed onto the ark. So the story changed. It became "kinds", without ever defining a kind, and never an acknowledgement that "variation in kind" was evolution.

The idea of biological species isn't sketchy at all. Try to educate yourself before you speak. You make yourself look like a fool. I guess that you are claiming that cats and dogs are a single species. They are reproductively isolated.

Of course, unless you are completely ignorant, you are aware that your argument about some creature going from one sub phylum to another is a straw man. Perhaps you should go to a college near you and educate yourself. Take enough biology courses to make you eligible to take an upper division course in cladistics.

One creature didn't go from one (sub)phylum to another. It is a matter of common ancestry, well documented at that. Birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs which are descended from archosaur reptiles, which are descended from more primitive reptiles. Your assertion of phylum jumping is ignorant at best.

And at your objection to the idea that man "came from simians little different than the modern ape" is the whole crux of the matter. You try to impose your understanding of creation on your own god. Either your god did it your way or else. The problem is that you leave yourself no alternative.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Congratulations. You seem to have grasped the concept. Local decreases in entropy are possible when a corresponding increase in the surroundings are equal to or greater than the decrease. I think that the increase in the entropy in the surroundings of tornadoes and huricanes is much greater than the decrease in entropy that caused the formation of the hurricane or tornado.

got a question, with a vacuum outside of the earth, there is nowhere that the entropy can go to, because entropy is directly connected to matter and energy, because it has to do with heat. since there is little to no matter outside of earth's atmosphere, please explain where all the entropy goes, because the sun, moon and planets seem to be unaffected. so much entropy would have to affect something, and since it doesnt affect the earth, and the stellar bodies in our solar system are unaffected, what accepts the entropy? if it were one of the other stellar bodies in our solar system, one of them would be in a high state of disarray, and maybe even in a disentegrating orbit. in order for so much energy to be used up on earth, energy conservation laws dictate that everything that is affected by a single process is considered part of the system, meaning that, in the big picture, the entirety of space would be part of the system. now given that there is nothing outside the unseen boundaries of space, there is nothing that can work on the universe from the outside naturally. working from this basis, you have to assume that there is either 1.) no boundaries to space and the amount of energy is unlimited, which is a direct contradiction of the laws of physics, which state that there is a limited amount of energy, and nothing can create or destroy it naturally, or 2.) there is a boundary to space and the amount of entropy has to stay the same or increase, meaning that, overall, evolution is impossible.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo And you didn't pay attention the the "better ones." All of them contradict a "true creationist" view. I have been presenting those examples for about 20 years. At first, the response was silence. The "creationist view" was that speciation was impossible. At long last, creationists realized that the millions of species that exist today could not possibly have been crammed onto the ark. So the story changed. It became "kinds", without ever defining a kind, and never an acknowledgement that "variation in kind" was evolution. The idea of biological species isn't sketchy at all. Try to educate yourself before you speak. You make yourself look like a fool. I guess that you are claiming that cats and dogs are a single species. They are reproductively isolated. Of course, unless you are completely ignorant, you are aware that your argument about some creature going from one sub phylum to another is a straw man. Perhaps you should go to a college near you and educate yourself. Take enough biology courses to make you eligible to take an upper division course in cladistics. One creature didn't go from one (sub)phylum to another. It is a matter of common ancestry, well documented at that. Birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs which are descended from archosaur reptiles, which are descended from more primitive reptiles. Your assertion of phylum jumping is ignorant at best. And at your objection to the idea that man "came from simians little different than the modern ape" is the whole crux of the matter. You try to impose your understanding of creation on your own god. Either your god did it your way or else. The problem is that you leave yourself no alternative.

let me put it simply, unless they are able to reproduce with another species, a species will never change its major physical characteristics. IE, a cat will always be a cat, and a dog will always be a dog. a dog will never give birth to a cat, and vice versa.

[gallo]

In post #781 I mistakenly attributed nonsense posted by dthmstr254 to LetThereBe. Sorry.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 got a question, with a vacuum outside of the earth, there is nowhere that the entropy can go to, because entropy is directly connected to matter and energy, because it has to do with heat. since there is little to no matter outside of earth's atmosphere, please explain where all the entropy goes, because the sun, moon and planets seem to be unaffected. so much entropy would have to affect something, and since it doesnt affect the earth, and the stellar bodies in our solar system are unaffected, what accepts the entropy? if it were one of the other stellar bodies in our solar system, one of them would be in a high state of disarray, and maybe even in a disentegrating orbit. in order for so much energy to be used up on earth, energy conservation laws dictate that everything that is affected by a single process is considered part of the system, meaning that, in the big picture, the entirety of space would be part of the system. now given that there is nothing outside the unseen boundaries of space, there is nothing that can work on the universe from the outside naturally. working from this basis, you have to assume that there is either 1.) no boundaries to space and the amount of energy is unlimited, which is a direct contradiction of the laws of physics, which state that there is a limited amount of energy, and nothing can create or destroy it naturally, or 2.) there is a boundary to space and the amount of entropy has to stay the same or increase, meaning that, overall, evolution is impossible.

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of thermodynamics and entropy. Wouldn't it be better to at least learn the basics of what you are arguing? Why make yourself look like such a fool? You can't seriously believe that the earth doesn't receive any energy input from the sun, can you? You can't seriously think that entropy is a substance, like a pile of peas, that has to "go somewhere." What does your babble about space and the universe have to do with local and temporary decreases in entropy on earth? Of course entropy increases. Just as I said before, local decreases are possible if there is a corresponding increase that is equal to or greater than the decrease that occurs elsewhere. As I pointed out, a snowflake is a decrease in entropy. The growth of an embryo is a decrease in entropy.

Learn what you are talking about, please.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 let me put it simply, unless they are able to reproduce with another species, a species will never change its major physical characteristics. IE, a cat will always be a cat, and a dog will always be a dog. a dog will never give birth to a cat, and vice versa.

Let me again recommend an education before you speak. Sign up for some biology courses at a local college. Learn at least the basics before you speak. Not even creationists claim that hybridization is necessary for evolution to take place.

By the way, only ignorant creationists have ever claimed that evolution is about dogs giving birth to cats. The idea is glaringly stupid to the point of mindlessness. By the way, you misspelled "simpleton" at the 5th word.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Let me again recommend an education before you speak. Sign up for some biology courses at a local college. Learn at least the basics before you speak. Not even creationists claim that hybridization is necessary for evolution to take place. By the way, only ignorant creationists have ever claimed that evolution is about dogs giving birth to cats. The idea is glaringly stupid to the point of mindlessness. By the way, you misspelled "simpleton" at the 5th word.

i wasn't saying "simpleton" i was saying simply. and this IS stuff that comes from the science books, and they were not written by ID believers. in fact, the writers of the book i gleaned this from are atheists. however, evolutionists claim that australopithicus (no i dont care if i mispelled it) gave birth to the next in line, but this is a direct contradiction of what we observe in nature, because they consider the next step in the chain to be a different species. and the similarities between the different links are so minute you have to know what they are in order for the links to make even a small amount of sense. there are no major similarities between the links to prove that they are even in the same chain. so we have to agree that there is no way of proving that there is a chain.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: gallo And you didn't pay attention the the "better ones." All of them contradict a "true creationist" view. I have been presenting those examples for about 20 years. At first, the response was silence. The "creationist view" was that speciation was impossible. At long last, creationists realized that the millions of species that exist today could not possibly have been crammed onto the ark. So the story changed. It became "kinds", without ever defining a kind, and never an acknowledgement that "variation in kind" was evolution.

Of course a variation in kind is evolution. Most creationists accept speciation (since it has been proven after all). A cat and a dog are clearly different kinds, but say, a polar bear and a grizzly are not. Most of the examples you provided produced very little actual variation within a group, just a refusal or incapablility to reproduce. I have recently been reading Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. He himself goes into numerous examples of speciation. He claims, however, that all witnessed evolution has been brought about by a corruption or loss of DNA, with no new base pairs being added. Perhaps that is false.

Quote by: gallo Of course, unless you are completely ignorant, you are aware that your argument about some creature going from one sub phylum to another is a straw man. Perhaps you should go to a college near you and educate yourself. Take enough biology courses to make you eligible to take an upper division course in cladistics. One creature didn't go from one (sub)phylum to another. It is a matter of common ancestry, well documented at that. Birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs which are descended from archosaur reptiles, which are descended from more primitive reptiles. Your assertion of phylum jumping is ignorant at best.

Well, I currently am enrolled in college, but that is irrelevant. You say birds are descended from therapod dinosaurs which are descended from archosaur repties. So a creature that once belonged to subphylum reptilia now belongs to aves. You claim what was once reptile became what is now aves. I didn't imply that a reptile became a bird in one generation. We have no documentation of a creature splitting into such vastly different animals. How can you document what you can not test empircally or observe happining in the present? All we have are a very few "transition" fossils that could just as easily be a completely seperate animal now extinct.

Quote by: gallo And at your objection to the idea that man "came from simians little different than the modern ape" is the whole crux of the matter. You try to impose your understanding of creation on your own god. Either your god did it your way or else. The problem is that you leave yourself no alternative.

[/quote]
Why do you think I'm trying to prove creationism true? All I'm saying is evolution is not the only valid possibility.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of thermodynamics and entropy. Wouldn't it be better to at least learn the basics of what you are arguing? Why make yourself look like such a fool? You can't seriously believe that the earth doesn't receive any energy input from the sun, can you? You can't seriously think that entropy is a substance, like a pile of peas, that has to "go somewhere." What does your babble about space and the universe have to do with local and temporary decreases in entropy on earth? Of course entropy increases. Just as I said before, local decreases are possible if there is a corresponding increase that is equal to or greater than the decrease that occurs elsewhere. As I pointed out, a snowflake is a decrease in entropy. The growth of an embryo is a decrease in entropy. Learn what you are talking about, please.

entropy is a measurement. if something is a measurement, the measured item must be either visible, such as the amount of items on a surface or in a bottle; noticeable, such as disorder; or tangible, such as air. entropy measures the amount of heat or disorder in a system, depending on what kind of process(es) is/are done.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: sergeant I save the other part for your friend...but I disagree with we have no right and no wrong....I feel there is a natural universal order....I'll only give one example but there are many....for instance...I feel we can all agree that killing another is wrong when it is for sport, greed or simple enjoyment ....I hope this comparison is as clear to you as it is to me....it is the natural order of things and is reflected in nature that killing is wrong...animals do not tend to kill for sport, greed or enjoyment...they only kill to provide for their young and protect them....an animal who kills for no apparent reason is usually sick with rabies or something....and a person who kills is usually sick with greed, rage, or a disorder.

Was that forced upon us, or did we "agree" to it? If we wanted we could change that. That's my point. There is no "universal order." I don't why you think Earth means the universe.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Yes, God did create the capability of sin. But He did not create sin. That is seperate. Sin is not itself an entity.. it is more the absence of good. Just as cold does not exist, it is instead just the lack of heat. Man just chose not to be good. The whole answer to your question about the necessity of Jesus: Man sinned. The wages of sin is death. The only sacrifice presentable before the Lord was an unblemished lamb. Thus, one who was perfect (without blemish) had to pay the wages of sin (death) to satisfy God's wrath. Jesus also fulfilled the requirement of being the "kinsman redeemer" mentioned in scripture. That is why He had to be man, and an animal sacrifice would not completely suffice. Atoning of sin does not equate with prevention. Or curing. It is forgiveness. That includes sin past, present, and future. Jesus was the one time sacrifice for ALL time. However, that does not mean that we can do whatever we want. Because of this, we must live by the new covenant (which is stricter than the old in many respects) I don't understand your "perfection doesn't have free will" argument at all.

"Sin is not itself an entity"

ENTITY: The fact of existence; being.

Sin does not exist? If sin does not exist then neither does it's opposite of goodness and happiness. What makes you so sure that goodness isn't the absence of sin?

So Jesus forgave our sins. That's it? He died to forgive us of the things we are and always will be capable of doing? We sin more now than we did before? Why the forgiving? So unnecessary and just plain dumb.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 and this IS stuff that comes from the science books, and they were not written by ID believers.

You didn't understand what you read. Try again. Read for comprehension.

Quote by: dthmstr254 in fact, the writers of the book i gleaned this from are atheists.

Why is that relevant? How would what you said be different if they were Baptists, for example the Biology staff at Baylor University?

Quote by: dthmstr254 however, evolutionists claim that australopithicus (no i dont care if i mispelled it) gave birth to the next in line, but this is a direct contradiction of what we observe in nature, because they consider the next step in the chain to be a different species. and the similarities between the different links are so minute you have to know what they are in order for the links to make even a small amount of sense. there are no major similarities between the links to prove that they are even in the same chain. so we have to agree that there is no way of proving that there is a chain.

Go and educate yourself. You are terribly confused. Only confused creationists talk about evolutionary chains. Evolutionary biologists also oppose your view of evolution. If you are going to argue against evolutionary theory, wouldn't it be nice if you learned at least the basics of what you claim to oppose? Otherwise, how do you know that you oppose it?

By the way, which species of Australopithecus are you talking about?

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 entropy is a measurement. if something is a measurement, the measured item must be either visible, such as the amount of items on a surface or in a bottle; noticeable, such as disorder; or tangible, such as air.

Yet again you demonstrate you ignorance of thermodynamics.

Quote by: dthmstr254 entropy measures the amount of heat or disorder in a system, depending on what kind of process(es) is/are done.

No its not. Again you are confusing classical thermodynamics with statistical mechanics. I see you are still ducking the little test I linked for you. It seems that you can't answer a few 1st semester questions (about 5th week) in introductory thermodynamics. Show us that you know enough about thermodynamics to discuss it. Take the Thermodynamics Test. I guess you find it preferable to show how much you don't know about it rather than to demonstrate your competence. You just keep ducking the question.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Gallo, I've been learning about entropy only recently so excuse me, but isn't entropy a negative measurement? And not technically a measurement?

[gallo]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Gallo, I've been learning about entropy only recently so excuse me, but isn't entropy a negative measurement? And not technically a measurement?

Entropy is, like energy, and abstract concept. Entropy is a property of a thermodynamic system. In thermodynamics, one does not measure entropy, since there isn't a good way to quantify it. Thermodynamics calculates changes in entropy. Notice question 7 on the Thermo Test. The answer to that question is "entropy." Question 7 is the thermodynamic definition of entropy.

If you calculate the integral of the heat transfer over the entire boundary of a system, the value will always be zero or less. That is a measurement of the increase in entropy. So an increase in entropy is a negative number.

I have also been letting dthmstr254 flounder around with thermo without giving him too much information in the answers. The reason that a tornado or a hurricane can be a spontaneous decrease in entropy is because of the huge increases in entropy it leaves behind. Ultimately, the largest increase in entropy is in the sun. That's why dthmstr254's response about being unable to move entropy into outer space is so funny. The earth is not a closed system. Whether or not the universe is, I don't know but it isn't relevant. Just because the total entropy of the universe cannot decrease doesn't mean that life on earth can't change.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 "Sin is not itself an entity" ENTITY: The fact of existence; being. Sin does not exist? If sin does not exist then neither does it's opposite of goodness and happiness. What makes you so sure that goodness isn't the absence of sin? So Jesus forgave our sins. That's it? He died to forgive us of the things we are and always will be capable of doing? We sin more now than we did before? Why the forgiving? So unnecessary and just plain dumb.

He payed the price. If you choose to serve Him, He might let you into heaven. Thats what the Christian believes. If you want to discuss this in more depth, we should probably take it to a thread where it would be more appropriate.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe He payed the price. If you choose to serve Him, He might let you into heaven. Thats what the Christian believes. If you want to discuss this in more depth, we should probably take it to a thread where it would be more appropriate.

No discussion needed. He died like every other man that dies on a cross. Remove the feelings and the bittersweet desire for an eternal life in heaven and he's just a peaceful man who died on a cross like many others before him.

[gallo]

Quote by: LetThereBe Of course a variation in kind is evolution. Most creationists accept speciation (since it has been proven after all).

No it hasn't. It has been observed. Science doesn't prove anything. However, the observation of speciation events is an important piece of evidence that supports the theories of evolution. Also, like I said, creationist acceptance of speciation is fairly recent. It is, after all, macroevolution.

Quote by: LetThereBe A cat and a dog are clearly different kinds, but say, a polar bear and a grizzly are not.

Define "kind." I would classify dogs, cats, brown bears and polar bears as the same kind of animal. They are all vertebrates. Moreover, they are all tetrapods, mammals and carnivora. So what is a "kind" and what are the criteria by which we can easily recognize them.

Quote by: LetThereBe Most of the examples you provided produced very little actual variation within a group, just a refusal or incapablility to reproduce.

Right. But the discussion was about examples of speciation. It is by definition, macroevolution. Now imagine that animals that have become separate species today still have an extant lineage 50 million years from now. Do you imagine that they would be the same? If we can make chihuahuas and Great Danes from wolves in a few thousand years, what to you suppose can happen in millions of years?

Quote by: LetThereBe I have recently been reading Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. He himself goes into numerous examples of speciation. He claims, however, that all witnessed evolution has been brought about by a corruption or loss of DNA, with no new base pairs being added. Perhaps that is false.

Just an unsupported assertion that has been shown to be incorrect. Suppose there is a witnessed case of evolution that is caused by a corruption in the DNA. Now suppose that we witness a change that is the exact reversal of the first. Is this also a corruption?

Quote by: LetThereBe Well, I currently am enrolled in college, but that is irrelevant. You say birds are descended from therapod dinosaurs which are descended from archosaur repties. So a creature that once belonged to subphylum reptilia now belongs to aves. You claim what was once reptile became what is now aves.

Cladistics. Birds are still dinosaurs and archosaurs. Besides, taxonomy is a device invented by humans. People invented the classifications that put birds and dinosaurs into different groups.

Quote by: LetThereBe I didn't imply that a reptile became a bird in one generation.

It seemed that you did.

Quote by: LetThereBe We have no documentation of a creature splitting into such vastly different animals.

Sure we do. It's called the fossil record. Even more documentation is furnished by DNA sequencing. From that we learn that birds are more closely related to crocodilians than to other reptiles. Studies of physiology have shown relationships between various lineages of animals. There is lots and lots of evidence for the common ancestry of life. There is even the fact that lobster DNA and human DNA use exactly the same code to represent precisely the same amino acids.

Quote by: LetThereBe How can you document what you can not test empircally or observe happining in the present? All we have are a very few "transition" fossils that could just as easily be a completely seperate animal now extinct.

The fact is that there are lots of transitional species. And they were completely separate animals that are now extinct. What exactly do you think that a transitional is? But the point is that if birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs we should be able to find examples in the fossil record with some characteristics of both. Guess what. We do.

Quote by: LetThereBe Why do you think I'm trying to prove creationism true? All I'm saying is evolution is not the only valid possibility.

I think you are trying to prove creationism true because you continue to spout creationist babble and you read creationist literature and pretend that you are learning science. And evolution is the only valid possibility since all others have been shown to be false. If that isn't true, why is it that you say that creationists accept evolution?