Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Ray writes:Now you have baited and switched from denying the Bible to be evidence to an unstated standard of evidence that undoubtedly excludes the Bible as evidence - correct?

Straggler in response writes:I don't believe you and I have ever discussed the bible before now. Are you thinking of someone else?
Whatever the case no need for the aggressive attitude.

Straggler writes:http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theoryAs regards the best evidence for creationism (and related creator requiring theories) -I would say the most convincing I have seen is Behe's argument for irreducible complexity at the molecular level.

Percy writes:http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theorySo which is the most convincing?I'm going to give more than one answer.For most creationists, its #1, the Bible, with #2, appearance of design, a close second.For the general public and probably for scientists, too, the most convincing creationist evidence is #2, the appearance of design.

Crashfrog writes:http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theoryWithin that context; indeed, the appearance of design in nature is half of the best evidence for creationism. The other half is that the Bible makes it clear that God created directly, in a short period of time.Those two things - the appearance of design and the Bible's support for creationism - are, indeed, the two best pieces of evidence for creationism.

Crashfrog writes:http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theoryWell, no, look. Ray's right about this. You gotta give it to him.If there were only two pieces of evidence in the entire world - the Bible and the appearance of design in the natural world - creationism would be the most logical explanation. The appearance of design does suggest design. I mean, that's how we know the difference between a river rock and a flint arrowhead.In the context of this thread - the best evidence for creationism - it's true that the best evidence is the appearance of design in the natural world and the testimony of the Bible. Those are the two best things they have.

Ray writes:http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory BEST POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM

​

1. The Bible.

​

2. Appearance (said word is neutral) of design in reality and nature.

​

3. Cambrian explosion.

​

4. Existence of Irreducible complexity.

​

5. Lack of species transitionality seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth.

​

6. Great Pyramid containing major Biblical claims in its physical passage system and measurements thousands of years before the Bible was written.

RAZD writes:http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theoryYour reply is a non-sequitur. But I must assume that it is, nonetheless, intentional.
Why has RAZD evaded my question?No, Ray: you are the one avoiding the question. You can try to hide the pea all you want, and make assertions all you want. The evidence of the posts show that your arguments are full of logical fallacies ... to the point where you have stopped trying to respond to the ones where I point them out. Such as Message 231quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that Creationism is a major view - that's all.So you agree that it is a logical fallacy and is not evidence for biblical creationism. Good.And logic is not a fallacy.Good (true) logic does not use fallacies, bad (false) logic does.... evolutionists routinely remind the world that the vast majority of working biologists are evolutionists, does your "Appeal to Popularity" apply when evos make this appeal?Yes. And the appeal to authority as well. So? Are you really surprised that evolutionary biologists are evolutionary biologists? This does not make evolution wrong, just that this alone is not evidence for evolution.Design corresponding to invisible Designer means that any Deity could be the Designer.If it is true. Because the logical structure is faulty it doesn't have to be true: it is also possible that apparent design is just that ... it appears to be design in the eye of the beholder. One view looks through a kaleidoscope and sees design, the other view looks at the jumbled bits and the mirrors and sees random processes producing the appearance of design.Biblical superiority or the identification of the Genesis Deity to be the Designer comes via Comparative Religion.
The Bible is true because what it says corresponds to reality, whether historic, scientific, visible or personal reality.Oh goody: now we are finally going to get real evidence ...Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly?Oops. YOU were supposed to provide the evidence Ray.But hey, just for fun: SN1987A is geometrically calculated to be 168,000 light-years away. The nova produced cobalt-56 which decayed according to the 77 day half-life we know from experiments here on earth. The frequency distribution of the light spectrum showed that it was cobalt-56 AND that the time intervals for those frequencies matched those on earth. This means that the speed of light can also be calculated from SN1987A for the time of the nova and it matches the speed of light we calculate now here on earth. This means that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Thus the universe is at least 168,000 years old ...Your turn. Tell me how the bible explains the distance to this nova, cobalt-56 formation, radioactive decay, stellar novas, frequency distributions of light for different elements AND the age of the universe.Once design is accepted as real then we say that the Biblical God is the Designer.OOPS: big logical error! You can say it all you want to, but you are missing the key step in the logical structure:Premise 1: Design is Real
Premise 2: (missing)
Conclusion: Biblical God is the DesignerWhere is your link, your premise #2? Without it your conclusion is invalid.WHERE'S THE BEEF?
This means Darwinism is false and special creation remains true. Do you understand what I am saying?I understand that you have been unable to refute the issue of your arguments all being logical fallacies. I understand that you have now introduced another logical fallacy, the False Dilemmaquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------A third option is that creation is true (your design=designer argument) AND that all life evolved on earth in accordance with the science of evolution because that was the way the universe was created. You have still not eliminated that possibility.I understand that you have no evidence or logic to substantiate your assertions that involve biblical creation.WHERE'S THE BEEF?Again, once design is validated as real then God is proven to exist. Special creation has always been true, RAZD. Common ancestry is falsified on so many lines of evidence it is ridiculous. Nested heirarchies do not even exist. When the data is examined, it does not support the claims.Denial of evidence does not make it so. Nature is surprisingly not influenced by your personal opinion. You need to demonstrate that this is anything but personal opinion, and you do that by providing evidence.WHERE'S THE BEEF?Innuendo.Failure to refute and all that eh Ray? Absolute failure to refute. Logic is really fairly simple to use, Ray ... if you follow the rules.Enjoy.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You failed to respond to that, and I repeated it on Message 262 and you have failed so far to respond to that.Inability to answer, maybe?Hoist on your own petard, Ray: inability to answer is failure to refute. You are the one failing to respond. Documented not just asserted (do you notice the difference?).Notice your brave challenge in Message 227 has been avoided when it was answered:Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly?My answer in Message 231 was:But hey, just for fun: SN1987A is geometrically calculated to be 168,000 light-years away. The nova produced cobalt-56 which decayed according to the 77 day half-life we know from experiments here on earth. The frequency distribution of the light spectrum showed that it was cobalt-56 AND that the time intervals for those frequencies matched those on earth. This means that the speed of light can also be calculated from SN1987A for the time of the nova and it matches the speed of light we calculate now here on earth. This means that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Thus the universe is at least 168,000 years old ...
Your turn. Tell me how the bible explains the distance to this nova, cobalt-56 formation, radioactive decay, stellar novas, frequency distributions of light for different elements AND the age of the universe.Failure to respond Ray?And you STILL have not provided evidence linking your assertion of evidence of design to biblical creationism.WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Failure to respond Ray?Nothing but failure to respond while trying desperately to change the topic to hide the fact that you have failed to respond, eh Ray?Avoiding the issue is failure to respond Ray.The topic of the thread is "Most convincing evidence for creation theory" and it has been pointed out that the ONLY thing presented so far are logical fallacies. The proper response is to present evidence, but you have not done this.Failure to respond Ray.Inability to answer?

Since the topic is about evidence for creation theory, I'm curious as to why creationists don't seem to be adding any new evidence. For example, why aren't they doing experimnents to show that their speculations about "canopy effects" are correct? How about a giant terrarium with controlled atmosphere and lighting conditions to show that those can effect longevity?

A book is not evidence.

Books written by Gould, Dawkins or Myers are not evidence for evolution.

The Bible isn't evidence for anything other than what some people have written.

What is evidence is the hard, reproducibly observable measurements and things referenced in such books.

Also evidence is clear, step by step logic using the measurements and things to arrive at conclusions which can be reviewed by other to see if the steps are indeed reasonable and if the conclusions are tied to more basic observations.

There is no special case here for the Bible; either for it or against it. It is simple NOT, in and of itself, evidence for anything about the world around us.

That this is the best evidence, but not that it is good evidence. What you have is bad (at best) evidence.

And each of those pieces of "evidence" has been discussed to show they are(1) logical fallacies or
(2) misrepresentation of the evidence

The bible is not evidence....

The bible is not evidence, certainly it cannot be used as evidence that the bible is true -- that is a logical fallacy of begging the question. It's like saying that the theory of evolution is evidence that the theory of evolution is true.

What you need is evidence that the bible is true.

The appearance of design can only be used once you have eliminated the possibility of random processes producing the appearance of design, This has not been done.

Misrepresentation of the evidence. Not only is this not an "explosion" but this is also preceded by evidence of earlier life, AND there is no evidence of "special creation" of fish, reptiles, mammals, and certainly not of any humans. There is no connection of this to "creation theory" that matches anything in the bible.

As with the appearance of design this can only be evidence once it is shown that such systems cannot be developed by normal evolutionary processes. This of course cannot be proven seeing as it has been invalidated: an "Irreducibly Complex" system has been observed to evolve. Thus this cannot be used as evidence for "creation theory" ... even if you can link it (not done) to biblical creation.

Another misrepresentation. There are many examples of transitional fossils. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away Ray, it just means that you cannot confront the evidence.

You are the one playing the semantics game: the book is it's written contents Ray.

books by Gould, Dawkins and Myers refer to external evidence -- scientific studies -- and are not themselves evidence.

Where is the external evidence for the bible?

No Ray it is just basic logic. A book cannot be the only evidence for its truth.

I notice that you snipped a bit of Straggler's post. Let's quote him in full, shall we.

You got that? He says that your best argument has been refuted.

Now, it seems to me like you either didn't bother to read my reply or you did and are trying to make it seem like these 3 people still support your evidence in light of all the evidence for evolution. I doubt they enjoy you misrepresenting their views.