Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Good question.Anyone?I, for one, am longing to see the evidence for the talking snake; or the magic knowledge-giving tree; or the manufacture of a woman from a man's rib ... or any of it, really. What we usually get is people whining about evolution and then pretending that if there was something wrong with biology, that would prove the fairy-tale about the talking snake.If you have a scrap of a shred of positive evidence for the story in Genesis, then I should be delighted to hear it.

You know how saying you're right doesn't magically make you right?This is why you've been challenged to produce evidence. As you know perfectly well, creationism and theism are not the same thing; and while science says nothing about the existence of God, it does fairly comprehensively debunk the fairy-story with the talking snake and the magic tree. If only saying this magically made it true. But of course we know that the appearance of design tells us nothing about the existence of a designer, and it certainly doesn't suggest that the designer is invisible.This motorbike, for example, appears to have been designed. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secrect --- it was designed.Should we conclude that the designer was invisible? That he was supernatural? That his method of design involved breaking the laws of nature? "Admitted"? Do you ever read your own posts? Whereas the appearance of design does not, since we know of lots of processes which produce the appearance of design without a designer. You seem to be trying to pretend that only atheists accept evolution. We all know that that's not true, so whom are you hoping to fool?Apart from this trivial bit of deception, your argument here seems to rely on the assumption that the appearance of design can't evolve. So your so-called "positive evidence" actually rests on pretending that the negative argument against evolution has been made successfully.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Before you post about the theory of evolution again, you might consider finding out what it is.

So far, we have:(1) A nice case of petitio principii. Creationism, we are told, is true because "the appearance of design is real". This is like saying that the best evidence that pigs can fly is that the genus Sus is volant.(2) Unsupported claims of divine revelation.(3) Claims that there is "abundant" evidence, which the claimant does not produce.Well, I'm convinced. I think I'll burn my evil biology textbooks and enter a monastery. Unless, of course, I can manage to get into a convent.

The final, shameful, creationist retreat. In order to put your fairy-story on a par with science, you have to deny the possibility of finding things out by studying the evidence. Yes, of course. What I'm wondering is why you haven't rejected the fatuous blunders in your cut-and-paste.Oh, right, because you don't think evidence is relevant to determining what is true.I notice, by the way, that nothing in there is positive evidence for the story with the magic tree and the talking snake. It seems to be mostly whining about geology. You were asked for positive evidence for your fairy-story, not more whining about science.

There is an alternative --- but that involves changing your mind; as exmplified by Glenn Morton, say, or Michael Denton. Or William Buckland, for that matter. Or Darwin. So far as I'm aware, only one camp examines the evidence. We call 'em scientists. Bees. Glad I could clear that one up for you.

It's no good having quantity without quality. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 is still 0.Things which vary by three million miles are not precisely positioned.We can watch stable ecosystems forms, as in the repopulation of Krakatoa.Thermodynamics has damn all to do with evolution.Abiogenesis has been observed.Out of trillions of planets, it is not unlikely that one should be suitable for life. Indeed, you must be aware that scientists think it possible that other planets and moons in our own solar system may harbor or have harbored life.Accurate prophecy has nothing to do with ID."Wholistic corroborative quantity argument" appears to be a longwinded way of saying "Gish gallop". Your "best evidence" appears to be that you guys have got a lot of bad arguments. By an odd coincidence, I half-jokingly put this up as the best evidence for evolution. You've had a hundred and fifty years, and this is the best you can do?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Simply asserting this doesn't make it true. An assertion is not evidence.Where is the evidence that the appearance of design is produced by an invisible Designer. Which is why no-one has done so: we have no need to emulate the debating tactics of Creationists. Declaring yourself right is really the best you can do?Yeah, I suppose it is.

I've argued this myself. The Argument from Design used to be sensible. But since we now know about the theory of evolution, the Argument from Design rests on the assumption that the negative argument against evolution has been made successfully.To quote myself, if I may:To draw a parallel, people used to know about fire as a source of heat and light, but not about nuclear fusion as a cause of these same two effects: and so in those days people quite sensibly based their reasoning on the idea that the Sun was a fire, since it resembled one. We might call this the Argument from Fire. But it would be foolish for someone living today to say: "We know that fire produces heat and light: therefore the Sun is on fire: therefore the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion."

No. No-one has ever told you that. You made that up.

Could you try to tell the truth more often?"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." -- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human SideStill, at least you didn't go so far as to claim that he was a creationist. I suppose a man ignorant of evolution would be a creationist by default. But did he have any good arguments for it? You do know how the EPR experiment turned out, don't you?No, I guess you don't. Why don't you look it up?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

(1) Er, "logically"?(2) You do know what conclusion all those "persons with Ph.D.s", our "brightest scientists" came to, yes?Hint: it starts with evo- and ends with -lution.

Once it has been validated. Of course, you don't produce this "data", or these "many lines of evidence" 'cos you made this up.

It's this habit we have called "telling the truth".And I think you mean "wherefore".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No it does not.Stop telling silly lies. No, this is a stupid lie about the theory recited by creationists because they don't have any good arguments against the actual theory.It's no good you telling this lie to me, because I know what the theory of evolution is.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.