The Ignorance of Creationists

reply to post by Michael Cecil


And what you're doing is called "philosophy"

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

You've lied about "every" scientist 'believing' in evolution. An obvious blatant lie I tried to let you out of easily but you chose to try to defend the remark till the bitter end.

First of all, I didn't say "every" scientist...I said the large majority. The % of acceptance lies between 95% (Gallup) and 99.9% (Harvard). Obviously no one is proving evolution through probability because we have harder evidence...but assuming we would, if you knew anything about statistics, 95% means you are CERTAIN and generally accept a hypothesis.

"There isn't frankly any proper scientific backing for rejection of the Big Bang. It's the only workable model that explains the homogeneity, acceleration, and directional movement of the universe."

Just quoting this again because I think it's hilarious of you to use as a means to claim the bib bang theory isn't accepted. The only issue people have is what caused it, and if it accurately describes the full process. For example, we know about the expansion, but theoretically, in the future everything could contract again. That doesn't mean the expansion (aka big bang) doesn't exist...we've directly observed it and have PICTURES! Last I checked you can prove facts with pictures...and that's just what they did earlier this year when composing the most detailed picture of background radiation ever.

Reality is God - so yes He is pretty amazing isn't He?

That's your opinion based on the fantasy world created by your interpretation of the bible...I'm only interested in reality, not fantasy land that isn't backed up by evidence.

Oh...and does this time of year just completely get under your skin?

I mean Who are you giving Thanks to today? God or yourself?

Who are millions/billions of people giving thanks to today? A Super Natural Being or darwin?

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Why is it called Christmas? Christ - mas...

Where is evolution day?

And you call us the ignorant ones?

Nope, doesn't get under my skin. It's the time of the year I get to see family, so it's usually a great time. I also get to go snowboarding with my brother, that's cool too.

I give those thanks that have a real positive effect on my life. Friends and family...not some mythical creature I made up in my mind. Because as this mythical creature would only exist in my mind (given that there's no proof of its existence), it would be like me thanking myself. The very thing you accuse atheists of doing, oh the irony

Well, thanksgiving wasn't a religious holiday anyway. Obviously there's many people giving thanks to their deity...and I got no problem with that. It's not as if they're hurting someone...

Yup, I celebrate Xmas...but not in a religious sense. It's just a time the family gets together.

Actually, I'm happy to tell you about evolution day...and Darwin day...since you don't seem to know about those amazing holidays. Evolution day is every year on November 24th, and Darwin day is on February 12th...for real btw, I'm not making this up.

In summary, most of those questions are pretty childish. I mean, what's next? Wanna ask me how people can have morals without god?

Originally posted by MrXYZ And what you're doing is called "philosophy".

But there is an issue here which is not merely "philosophy".

That issue is that the rooster speaks for itself and reality speaks for itself. It makes a unique sound.

And, if I go to a farm, I will NOT hear roosters speaking the words "cock-a-doodle-doo" OR "corri-co-co-ro".

In other words, both religion and science represent the reality rather than speaking for reality.

And science was originally referred to as "natural philosophy".

So, basically, the argument between the evolutionists and the religionists or creationists is one of the most childish I've heard; and on both sides.

Sometimes the scientific description of reality is the appropriate representational frame of reference and sometimes the theological representation of reality is more appropriate. It is when one perspective insists that it is the ONLY correct explanation, and to the EXCLUSION of all other explanations, that the problem arises.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


You are assuming (!!) there is something like a "rooster". We can perceive things and consider them reality. That doesn't mean we understand all of it, but science is able to explain quite a bit. Whatever we can't explain is simply NOT KNOWN.

Now religion fills that gap in knowledge with "god" or something mythical without providing any evidence to support those claims. You are assuming they have a point, but at best, what they do is look at things philosophically...but philosophy has no boundaries, you can make up anything and think about it. That doesn't mean it exists. However, we can measure reality with science. If I drop a ball from 20 yards up, I can calculate the speed it has when it hits the floor...and the force of the impact. I can do that because of scientific theories and laws. They represent reality.

You assuming there's some other mythical reality is nothing but a philosophical hypothesis.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally postet by: mrvdreamknight

You're a little late to the party brother.

We've been going back and forth over evolution for weeks now.

My theory remark was more of an inside thing.

But since you decided to 'butt' in, and I'm such a nice guy, and I don't want you to look bad, here goes: In a nutshell some members here present evolution as a fact. Just as they did the big bang. Of course, we know for a 'fact' neither of these are indeed factual. I just like fng with them over the theory thing - it really pisses them off - so I keep doing it. It's funny as heck from my 'perspective'.
...

Im sorry, didnt know you were trolling... thought you wanted to be taken seriously.
My fault - wont happen again, I promise
Im new on ATS and so I was unaware of your inside thing.

So you actually do know how to discuss properly but refuse to do so - just to piss people off?
You mix up terms like "fact", "theory" and "ignorance" on purpose?
Man thats rude imho... and you really are 44 years old?
Did you know about the deny ignorance mantra ATS is all about?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I knew that you wouldn't understand.... This is actually a simple concept. Although when you've been indoctrinated to believe something, you have to stop and start doing some individual thinking and rationalizing to get to it's understanding.

What humans have used for measuring time is completely inaccurate and by definition must be inaccurate. It's like trying to measure the length of a ruler if you're trapped INSIDE the ruler.

If Einstein's theories of relativity are true, then as space expands, time speeds up. Space is not likely to be infinite, it is likely finite, but as it expands it stretches. It stretches from the outside/in. The places where space is stretched more time moves faster. Therefore the closer we are to the center of the universe, the slower time moves. This disrupts our entire concept of history.

This is meted out with all observed phenomena. Notice I said all observed phenomena, not all calculations based on theories. Many theories are so wrong as to be laughable even though they are the current accepted paradigm.

the methods used for measuring past time are inherently flawed because they rely either on the number of times the earth has traveled around the sun, on human oversimplification of observed phenomena or on processes that are based on actual time, that is variable based on the density of space.

Try thinking for yourself and stop relying on indoctrination by those that are well versed in the current paradigms.

You say ignorance abounds, but the ignorance you're talking about is ignorance of established paradigms that are historically likely to be completely wrong. Try denying ignorance by observing and measuring and determining for your self what is most and least likely.

Remember that the only certainty is that your individual consciousness exists, everything else, you accept on faith. If you don't understand the term "I think therefore I am" then you are hopelessly lost in ignorance.

I know what I don't KNOW... Everything except that my consciousness exists. I believe a whole lot more than that, but I understand that it is belief.

Now tell me, which one of us is steeped in ignorance???

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden

the methods used for measuring past time are inherently flawed because they rely either on the number of times the earth has traveled around the sun, on human oversimplification of observed phenomena or on processes that are based on actual time, that is variable based on the density of space.

Actually, we don't measure time by the amount of times the earth travelled around the sun, lol. We stopped doing that years ago when we came up with the atom clock.

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Given that, "time doesn't move slower" as you incorrectly claim. Now, before you say "that's an observed phenomena"...well, yeah, duh! That's how science assesses reality, it's the only way we can objectively assess reality. If you don't agree with that, you also have to disagree with planes flying, engines, and all the other science-produced comforts of life. Every single technological progress we made is based on science observing nature and drawing conclusions...and then applying those conclusions.

As for your "density of space" influences time...please provide some backup of that

There's stuff science can explain, and there's stuff we just don't know. There is no third "let's make something up" category. Well, there is, but it's got nothing to do with reality...it's only in people's minds.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

You are assuming (!!) there is something like a "rooster".

What complete nonsense this is. It is not any assumption at all.

Where do you get this idea?

I saw a rooster just several weeks ago. It was a rooster. Other people saw it too. And I 've heard it crow before, too. And it is a very uniqe sound. It is a reality.

Similar for man and the consciousness of man. It is a reality just like the sound of a rooster. And that reality cannot be conveyed in the words "Cock-a-doodle-doo" or the words of scientific theory or theological doctrine.Those words merely represent the reality.

Whatever we can't explain is simply NOT KNOWN.

Which is equivalent to the insistence that rooster SPEAK THE WORDS "Cock-a-doodle-doo".

Roosters don't speak English, or any other language.

Maybe you need to actually hear a rooster in order to know what I am talking about here.

Now religion fills that gap in knowledge with "god" or something mythical without providing any evidence to support those claims.

So what? That is "cock-a-doodle-doo" rather than "corri-co-co-ro".

What difference does it make?

They are both representations.

Relax.

Why the angst and the drama?

In any case, neither is there any evidence that the 'thinker' exists.

Seriously.

There are thoughts--one of those thoughts being the 'thought' of the 'thinker'--but there is no evidence that those thoughts have actually been 'thought' by any 'thinker'. That is a flagrant violation of Occam's Razor.

You are assuming they have a point, but at best, what they do is look at things philosophically...but philosophy has no boundaries, you can make up anything and think about it.

I really don't have any idea what the Farsi or Chinese or Russian words are for "cock-a-doodle-do" or "moo", for that matter. But if I were told what those words are, I have a sneaking suspicion that I would be able to determine which words pertain to which animal. In no language will you have a rooster making a sound like a cow. So, no, you really cannot make up "anything and think about it".

However, we can measure reality with science.

Well, I disagree. Or corri-co-co-ro. Same difference.

You assuming there's some other mythical reality is nothing but a philosophical hypothesis.

The sound that a rooster makes is a real sound. It is not any illusion or "mythical reality". And that sound cannot be reproduced in the phonetic tones of the English language or any other language, for that matter. All the 'equivalences' in the different languages are merely representations of that sound. They are not replacements for that sound. Neither is any scientific theory or description or measurement or theological doctrine an adequate replacement for reality.

Reality is independent of the conceptual representations of reality.

Mi cha el

reply to post by MrXYZ


You really don't seem to understand the difference between "making random stuff up" and "drawing conclusions through scientific method". You are assuming some super-reality in which religious people have a point and might be right. But that's just a philosophical claim. There's no evidence to support it. And you're right, we might not be able to perceive it. But religion is based on the human psyche and not observed facts.

If you throw a ball up in the air with a given force, you can predict how high up it'll go. Everyone can test it.

When it comes to religion, there's probably around 7bil different beliefs as everyone interprets stuff differently. But not one of them has any evidence to suppor tall those claims.

According to you, it's perfectly fine to say "unicorns exist" even if we have no evidence...because there might be some special reality where unicorns really exist. That's ridiculous.

I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want, but when they shape their environment based on beliefs and not logic...it has some ugly outcomes. We have religious extremists, people hating gays, people hating people that don't believe as they do...and based on what? Random subjective (!!) interpretation of scriptures that were written by humans before them.

Why should I give those religious theories credibility if there's no evidence to support the claims? You claim they have a point...but based on what? Pure blind belief?

Every advancement we made has come from science and technology. The computer you use to type your posts, the car you drive to work, the way your house is built, the material of your clothes...THAT is reality.

Sure, there's tons of stuff we don't know, but why on earth would you make it sound as if religious people have a good point in the absence of any proof? That's totally illogical!

If you'd say something like "religion can have a positive effect on someone's psyche and life"...then I could agree, because that's true for some people. But giving the literal interpretation of scripture credibility is laughable given the amount of things that have already been proven wrong. Basically, you're saying "yeah, they might be right when it comes to creation...I know the flood thing is total hogwash, but yeah, the creation thing might be right". BASED ON WHAT?

Reality isn't based on belief. And if you disagree, then that's a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion as it cannot be tested in any way. All that "consciousness vs reality" stuff you post is philosophy that has no backing in science. Why on earth would I walk around and do the equivalent of saying unicorns exist, and why should I accept anything written in a random book without question?

Look at 12AC, before that time we had tons of scientific discoveries, and then religion took hold and imposed STATIC doctrine on people. People switched of their brains...or could only use them in hiding. For centuries it stayed that way. I want humanity to be FLEXIBLE, OBJECTIVE, and INQUISITIVE...not like blind sheep following doctrine and rejecting anything that goes against their belief. Research! Look for evidence! Examine your surroundings! THINK!

Here's the definitions for reality that make it clear you're talking about philosophy:

That which exists objectively and in fact

We can only objectively assess things by measuring them according to our capabilities. That's the only way we can say something is fact. Gravity exists because we can quantify it. Math is the language of the universe...

4. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness

You're talking about philosophy, and talking about creation philosophically is a whoooooole different thing. In philosophy, no holes are barred, anything goes if you can think of it. That's not what science is about though and not how we figure out how the world works. At best, it might have some applications in psychology...

LINK

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Sophistry and false equivocation will get you nowhere, especially in a thread that speaks about the scientific ignorance of creationists

You have done nothing to address the title of this thread in a single one of your posts. Creationists simply demonstrate ignorance of science throughout this forum. Were I to go to ten random threads that hit 20+ posts, I could find several examples of it.


reply to post by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I knew that you wouldn't understand.... This is actually a simple concept. Although when you've been indoctrinated to believe something, you have to stop and start doing some individual thinking and rationalizing to get to it's understanding.

...no, I understand quite fully that you are wrong. We know that the Earth is at a minimum 4 billion years old.

We have fossil evidence of creatures that lived hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions of years ago.

What humans have used for measuring time is completely inaccurate and by definition must be inaccurate. It's like trying to measure the length of a ruler if you're trapped INSIDE the ruler.

Ok, please prove to me that the rate of atomic decay is completely inaccurate.

If Einstein's theories of relativity are true, then as space expands, time speeds up. Space is not likely to be infinite, it is likely finite, but as it expands it stretches. It stretches from the outside/in. The places where space is stretched more time moves faster. Therefore the closer we are to the center of the universe, the slower time moves. This disrupts our entire concept of history.

Evidence please?

This is meted out with all observed phenomena. Notice I said all observed phenomena, not all calculations based on theories. Many theories are so wrong as to be laughable even though they are the current accepted paradigm.

...such as? And you actually need some calculations if you're talking about time.

the methods used for measuring past time are inherently flawed because they rely either on the number of times the earth has traveled around the sun, on human oversimplification of observed phenomena or on processes that are based on actual time, that is variable based on the density of space.

Again, proof please.

And our measurement of time is actually based upon atomic decay.

Try thinking for yourself and stop relying on indoctrination by those that are well versed in the current paradigms.

You have done nothing to prove your position and have only shown ignorance of the theory of relativity.

You say ignorance abounds, but the ignorance you're talking about is ignorance of established paradigms that are historically likely to be completely wrong.

Not really. The only places where we're likely to be wrong are in the theoretical realms of physics

Try denying ignorance by observing and measuring and determining for your self what is most and least likely.

...and you've provided no observations, measurements or evidence of any kind...the science I read actually provides evidence to back up its claims.

Remember that the only certainty is that your individual consciousness exists, everything else, you accept on faith.

No, that is only according to Cartesian philosophy. I am not a Cartesian.

If you don't understand the term "I think therefore I am" then you are hopelessly lost in ignorance.

And if you think philosophy of knowledge ended with "Cogito ergo sum" (I am thinking therefore I exist), you're actually quite ignorant of philosophy.

I know what I don't KNOW... Everything except that my consciousness exists. I believe a whole lot more than that, but I understand that it is belief.

This is a thread to discuss creationist ignorance of science, not a thread to go into epistemology.

Now tell me, which one of us is steeped in ignorance???

You, especially since you're making some ignorant claims to someone who minored in Philosophy for two years...
And you haven't demonstrated an ounce of understanding of science, you just demonstrated complete ignorance of the theory of relativity.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

... you just demonstrated complete ignorance of the theory of relativity.

If I may jump in on this one ... there's a considerable difference between 'ignorance' and 'total dependence'.

That is to say that just because one isn't mired in relativity doesn't mean they are ignorant of it. We have a massive aspect of science (quantum) that we even struggle to theorize a bridge to relativity. So even particle behavior is subjective by nature.

Many philosophies/spiritualities echo the science ... what we call relativity are just abstract mind made concepts, basically illusions, constructed by our minds and for our minds to rationalize our environment. But there is no actual north, one has to invent a dual conceptual opposite to identify it. It's ALL mind constructs, and they are ALL fundamentally subject to perception (subjective) ... to exist in this narrow scope is self imposed existential imprisonment, the primary consequence of which is believing that things are what we call them.

Like I sated earlier, religion aside for it has little to do with spiritual awareness, all paths including science, spirituality, philosophy, art, etc, lead to the same awareness ... and it isn't relativity.

Thus one who lives within this limited scope can hardly cast 'ignorance' accusations at others who dwell is different but equally limited realities. As I understand it, that is what Masterjaden was trying to communicate.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


You forget that everything is backed up by math. Every physicist will acknowledge that. Math is unbiased and VERY clear in its results. Equations have to work or else stuff is rejected.

What MC was talking about is clearly philosophy which relies on SUBJECTIVE interpretation that can't be as certain as concepts backed up by math.

They're entirely different things. It might actually be interesting to discuss stuff from a philosophical standpoint...but religion can't expect to attack science and then justify it through philosophy when evidence (math) is against it.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

They're entirely different things. It might actually be interesting to discuss stuff from a philosophical standpoint...but religion can't expect to attack science and then justify it through philosophy when evidence (math) is against it.

Indeed, and when it comes to evolution specifically those who extrapolate from religious dogma are surely missing the mark (incidentally missing the mark is the actual definition of sin). However the same cannot be said of our universe's origins and creation for as I have stated science hasn't gotten its noodle around it and despite competing hypotheses, they are a mystery to us. Hence why I have observed the trap that is to discuss the scientific elements of evolution in the same breath as 'origins/creationism.' Even in a relativistic world, they are as you said, completely different things.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


The difference is, science labels stuff correctly. Evolution is correctly labeled as a theory because we have really figured it out.

Most of the abiogenesis research are only hypotheses, and labeled as such. That means science isn't claiming to know, they say "this might be it...and we're gonna test that". If it passes, it turns into a theory, otherwise it dies of very quickly. In astro-physics for example, the average hypothesis only lasts around a year before it gets destroyed. And most of them do get destroyed...or at least have to be modified and retested.

I think this highlights how FLEXIBLE science is...and why it's a great means to progress as a human species. It's flexible enough to change with the environment, dare I say...omg...evolve? Religion on the other hand is static, it doesn't care about the environment or evidence, it just makes claims, and people have to believe it. No change, no adaption, no progress.

Religion claims to KNOW the ultimate answer. Just look at all the people who take the genesis account literally and argue about whether the sun came on day 1 or day 4. I mean, discussions like that are laughable to anyone who's brain isn't brainwashed enough remain objective. Religion's claims towards creation aren't even hypothesis as they cannot be tested. They're pure blind belief!

Yet they come on here attacking evolution and claiming only they have the right answer. And of course it's exactly their own personal non-evidence-based interpretation of the bible that's right...God is a personal god, and he's obviously the Christian god.

The more you think about it rationally, the crazier it seems. Here we are in the 21st century, over 400,000 years after the Neanderthals who took lightning as an act of god because they didn't know any better...and we're repeating their ignorance. I mean, there's people on this forum that claim humans have only been on earth for 6035 years because the bible says so. You can show them links to homo sapiens skeletons that are 250,000 years old, tell them they're basically ignoring the entire bronze age...nothing can shake their blind faith and ignorance.

And I think THAT'S one of the major problems we're facing today. That ignorance and irrationality seeps through into politics, and ultimately all of us. We have people voting against implants because they're the "mark of the beast"...not thinking about how those same chips could help a lot of people. For example, a chip like that could analyze the blood without forcing a patient to stick a needle into him every single day. Well, if you live in Kentucky, you better like needles because you ain't getting a chip...but they saved you from the devil, so rejoice!

Who do I blame? Politics! I'm not even blaming education, as I know teachers don't have it easy either. They're underpaid, at least all but those who work for the most expensive private colleges. We spend so much on the military, even 5% of that diverted to education would help so much.

If you read these forums, you get a feeling a lot of people in the US are worried their country is loosing ground compared to India and China. Well, of course education isn't the only reason, but it plays a big part. India has more honor students than the US has students!! Education drives countries, and if it suffers, a country falls behind.



If you wanna talk about a real conspiracy, let's talk about Carlin's claim. I think his "the owners of this country want the population to be dumb and obedient" statement has merit. Just look at how viciously religion is used in campaigning...it's the ultimate means to control the masses.

And before the creationists come and say "seeeeeeeeee, you think we're all dumb": That's NOT what I'm criticizing about you lot. Not knowing isn't a crime or bad thing. There's tons of stuff I don't know. But ignoring evidence because it disagrees with your belief is WRONG and makes you IGNORANT. That's what makes me sad because it's hurting the whole country.

reply to post by MrXYZ


It's not that I am ignoring the substance of your post, I don't even necessarily disagree with it, it's just that I cannot argue against a hypothetical ... what I mean is, I know that there are folks who do that, but there simply is no reasoning when the other person chooses to disregard reason. So when people argue science from religious dogma the best approach, at least for me, is to be indifferent and not to call them 'ignorant.' Mostly I take no personal vexation in the fact that these folks think that way.

But I did want to address this:

Religion claims to KNOW the ultimate answer.

See this is the problem with words.

When folks speak of a spiritual 'knowing' they speak of a deep seeded knowing and not of a knowledge derived from accumulation of information, reason, deduction, etc ... then there is the empirical knowledge that scientists formulate. And though the two concepts are vastly different they share the same word.

Like you say, some people (often from both sides) intentionally interchange them to pimp dogma, Others don't look past the word and don't perceive or distinguish the different definitions.

Anyhoot, this is why these conversations never really achieve anything in a forum environment. For these topics require precision of words and reason from those who choose to participate in them in authenticity. Something that this medium is not conducive to. An interesting topic for the debate forum though.

Off to eat cold turkey.

Listen, this thread has gotten a bit sidetracked...the simple fact is that there is a complete and almost proud ignorance of science coming from creationists. They try to speak volumes about science without having even picked up a book on it.

How are we supposed to debate science with those who refuse to take part in it?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul Sophistry and false equivocation will get you nowhere, especially in a thread that speaks about the scientific ignorance of creationists You have done nothing to address the title of this thread in a single one of your posts.

Well, Sir, far be it from me to interfere with what clearly appears to be an attempt to INTENSIFY what I consider to be an utterly unnecessary conflict.

And, if you are determined to intensify that conflict; then, by all means, be my guest.

But a few questions:

Do you actually 'think' that accusing the creationists of ignorance is going to improve the situation, even if I happen to agree with you?

I am already well aware of the arguments that have been raised by both sides of this issue; so much so that my goal, now, is to diminish rather than intensify that conflict.

Is not the more likely response for them to accuse you of ignorance according to their definitional system; something with which I would probably also agree to a certain extent as well?

Why do you place such a premium on conflict and the intensification of conflict?

And why is it "sophistry" or "false equivocation" to state that a rooster speaks with its own voice and not in human language, and that all human language attempts to describe that sound are merely representational?

Oh, never mind.

In any case, 'sorry' for the interruption.

And, now, back to our "regularly scheduled program" of intensifying conflict wherever it can be found.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

No, as 'creation' requires a 'creator', hence evolution makes no claims to it. Evolution is simply a consequence of life which contains genetic coding.

No one said evolution claims there's a creator.

Evolution describes creation.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


you can remedy this by ceasing to waist your time by caring what others believe. it seams to me that you have a superiority complex and have to prove others that you are wright and they are wrong. whether evo is wright or wrong seems to me, to not be the point of your thread. the point to me seems to be that "you" are wright and not evo. obviously you have a problem with God and or the theory of God. this is the second thread you have made in the past few weeks, that is an attach on creationism. you seem to be a very intelligent person but it is hard to have any respect for you since you flaunt your intelligence around like a brand new ferrari.

“The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.”- Socrates.

"if you truly want people to believe that you are wright and they are wrong, admit you have no idea if you are wright but you think that you could be". - me

and one more for good measure

"For every design, there is a Designer" - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

No, as 'creation' requires a 'creator', hence evolution makes no claims to it. Evolution is simply a consequence of life which contains genetic coding.

No one said evolution claims there's a creator.

Evolution describes creation.

Now you're just trying to troll...

If evolution described creation, you first had to prove the existence of a creator. Because without a creator no creation is possible. We have ZERO evidence for a creator...so your whole "evolution describes creation" is a weird claim.