There is evidence for creationism.

They are perfectly parallel. "Cell theory" is far less precise than actual information about cells. The rule of "cell theory" you're citing is wrong as we can clearly see the progression of cells and still have no reason to conclude that cells need to form via magic and a God is the only thing able to magically make cells. Cells actually are the fundamental unit of Earth-based life and most do come from other cells. But, to assemble that like it's a mathematical requirement of existence is simply silly. I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying it's trivial. We can just look at the damn cells. Nothing requires a creator or even suggest one. It's a claim that we can't do X because I don't know how X is done. I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. * There does not appear to have been any life 4.5 billion years ago. I am disagreeing with the overly naive and overly simplistic presentation and the making of false statements which you take as logical absolutes. * Cells probably didn't come on the scene for a few billion years. * It isn't my turn to show any proof whatsoever that cells popped out of no where. It is your job to show evidence that cells popped out of a creator God. I am not arguing for evolution, or creationism, the big bang or quantum mechanics. I am arguing that there is no evidence for creationism. Thus far, bad arguments from bad assumptions (which already assumed the conclusion, you are demanding an exception to a statement which arbitrarily says there are no exceptions). * I have no objection to the colloquial definitions used. What should compel an acceptance of creationism? The idea that there is only one option, or that creationism is an option, are still wrong. You are creating a false dichotomy. Clearly this science stuff is wrong and therefore creationism is right. I'm sorry, no. Even if there is only one theory to describe a particular phenomenon that does not suggest that that theory is correct. For example, we don't know why particles and antiparticles rip apart for brief periods of time and have begun to assume it's causeless. However, I'm saying that it's done by fairies. Should we accept my theory? It's the only one there! No, no we shouldn't. We need evidence that this is the case, just as we need evidence that God did it is a reasonable conclusion. Suggesting that it stands alone or that it is the only conclusion you'll accept doesn't make it true. It still lives or dies by the evidence... and there's no evidence! * You should laugh at the fairies statement, it is ludicrous! It's exactly what you're asking me to accept but rather than claim fairies, you're claiming gods! Matter and anti-matter cancel each other out because they are opposite forces, pretty much they are the same quarks spinning in the other direction. They cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite... they only exist because they haven't canceled each other out. They are actually getting something and anti-something from nothing. I fully understand Newton's laws. Inertia is downright trivial. Objection in motion stay in motion. Objections not in motion stay not in motion. When a particle splits out of nothingness it isn't inertia (first law) but equal and opposite (second law) they fling out in opposite direction of opposite particles. In all, they cancel out to a net zero change (thusly fitting with both Newton's Second and the Conservation of Matter). * Just the speculation of the hypothesis shows that God-did-it isn't an isolated prospect. You can't just jump to the conclusion. You need to provide evidence. As evidence is the entire point of this debate you still lose. You haven't provided a lick of evidence. * Actually net-zero is the way cosmology seems to be trending. It's admittedly speculative because some of the values aren't known to a good enough degree to conclude that it's accurate. But, to impeach the idea for being speculative in order to conclude God is the utmost of silliness. ------------------------------------ You seem remarkably odd trying to shift away from the question at hand. It doesn't matter what evidence there is for evolution or for many of the major ideas of cosmology. Rather what matters is is there any reason to conclude that creationism is the correct answer? You argue that it's the only answer and thus must be accepted, but that's a clear logical fallacy. You argue that other theories are wrong, but that's not the case and a moot point anyhow. -- What evidence is there for creationism? You've offered poor critiques of other theories and bad arguments and logical fallacies. The entire point to this debate is to ask one question, is there any evidence for creationism? -- So far we've drawn a rather stark answer: No.