Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for creation theory
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 256 of 307 (412844)
07-26-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Best Positive Evidence
It is not a matter of opinion: ToE says God does not exist in reality.
No it does not.
Stop telling silly lies.
This is the most undisputed claim of your theory.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 257 of 307 (412845)
07-26-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Best Positive Evidence
There is external evidence that corroborates but I am not "fluent" in presenting it. We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long.
We "know" this how?
Can I live to be a thousand by staying out of the sun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 258 of 307 (412846)
07-26-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:22 PM


Re: What is your point?
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?
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.
"Question" presupposes the Bible to not be credible, and it presupposes physical evidence superior, and it presupposes the Bible to not be reliable and objective.
I would presuppose any book to be non-credible and non-objective evidence unless it can demonstrate otherwise in some way. Books are written by humans. Humans lie and get things wrong.
Any conclusions about nature should be founded in study of nature directly.
Speaking to a Muslim the other day - He was convinced the Koran described the Big Bang and claims that it therefore "predicted" BB theory
What physical evidence is there to justify the bible as evidence over the Koran for example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 4:27 PM Straggler has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 259 of 307 (412847)
07-26-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:59 PM


No evidence then, just like the rest of the thread?
There is external evidence that corroborates but I am not "fluent" in presenting it.
Well I am aware of a great deal that contradicts it, so we will have to say at the moment you have no external evidence to support Genesis' claim here.
We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long.
Okay, so what's your evidence for this canopy and what is the evidence that ancient men lived very long lives? Do you have any human remains that support your claim?
But my point in the other post was that, like Karnak, the recording of information is so that it is not lost.
The recording of fairy tales is done for the same reason, doesnt mean they are true though.
We know that at least 17 out of 155 cities have been identified. Nobody would doubt the existence of the others,
I think it is a very poor scholar who would jump to that conclusion, given that we know the ancients sometimes exaggerated a great deal.
why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula?
It is called critical research.
Do you think if one thing in a book is shown to be correct that this automatically means everything in that book is correct?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 307 (412850)
07-26-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 11:53 AM


Another logical fallacy
We already know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes the Bible to not be evidence, what is your point?
No Ray. We all know that you cannot use the premise that {A} is true to support the conclusion that {A} is true.
It is called rational thinking and the application of the rules of logic, and it has nothing to do with faith or belief, and everything to do with being honest.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 11:53 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 4:15 PM RAZD has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 261 of 307 (412853)
07-26-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:49 PM


Re: The problem with the creationist evidence
Cold Foreign Object writes:
quote:
Exactly, it is almost like creationists don't really understand what "evidence" is. Interpretations of things (especially when based on faulty logic) is not evidence.
This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE.
No, the comment does not say that. The comment does state however that interpretations of things is not evidence. More specifically Razd was replying to straggler when he posted this, the comment was regarding the "apparent design" as the best evidence. This would be faulty logic and therefore not evidence.
This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist?
First you put words in his mouth and then you call it circular logic and bias! I will not suggest that all creationists use the same keyboard though, It's just apparent that your keyboard is not very logical.
We know there was a canopy over the Earth
Is your knowledge based on evidence, or just what you think should be apparent?
which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long
Do you have evidence that if I remain inside my house I will live a thousand years? (Provided I can quit smoking)
why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula?
Evidence of one item being true is not evidence of the entire book being true. Would you base this same formula for all things you read or hear? I believe this is another example of faulty logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 262 of 307 (412856)
07-26-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:49 PM


Re: The problem with the creationist evidence
This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE.
No this comment says that you have yet to provide any real evidence in spite of having gotten to over 260 posts on this thread. The opportunity to present evidence has been totally wasted by the creationists desperately trying to pass off logical fallacies as evidence.
This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist?
Claiming this does not make it so -- you need to demonstrate it. On the other hand pointing to the paucity of evidence presented while at the same time to claims that creationists make of having lots of evidence SHOWS that when push comes to shove they can't pony up, presenting logical fallacy after logical fallacy instead.
The logical conclusion is that they do not know what evidence is.
Creationists already know that Atheists deny Creationism to have any evidence which leaves us wondering as to what is RAZD's point?
You could actually avoid this issue by PRESENTING EVIDENCE!
I notice you have also failed to answer Message 231
quote:
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 Designer
Where 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 Dilemma
quote:
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.
I guess that means you have nothing more to say on the issue: failure to refute and all that eh?
Avoiding the issue is failure to refute, Ray. The argument does not go away.
Anyone reading this thread must wonder why Ray won't provide any real evidence:
Opinion is not evidence
Logical fallacies are not evidence
Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Failure to deal with the issues is not evidence
Except of failure. 260 plus posts of failure.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 263 of 307 (412877)
07-26-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
07-26-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Logic is not a fallacy
Ray writes:
We already know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes the Bible to not be evidence, what is your point?
RAZD in response writes:
No Ray. We all know that you cannot use the premise that {A} is true to support the conclusion that {A} is true.
It is called rational thinking and the application of the rules of logic, and it has nothing to do with faith or belief, and everything to do with being honest.
Your reply is a non-sequitur. But I must assume that it is, nonetheless, intentional.
Why has RAZD evaded my question?
Inability to answer, maybe?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 1:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 4:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 264 of 307 (412878)
07-26-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:04 PM


Re: Summary to date ... what there is ...
UFO phenomena presents no conflict with Biblical creation.
So in the beginning there was nothing. Then God made the universe and the Earth and mankind.
And, then, I guess in the "missing" chapters, God went and created the aliens, made them smarter than us (even though we are the ones in his image) and now they're here to visit us.
I mean, I can understand why these people are coming here. Since God made us special, surely they want to visit. Plus, it's a natural draw to visit the planet the entire universe revolves around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 265 of 307 (412879)
07-26-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 11:57 AM


What Evidence?
In other words, you refuse to scroll back and address the posts where the evidence is listed
I looked. The ONLY thing I see is "appearence of design".
But you have yet to explain what "design" is.
How can you say, "Well this thing appears to be designed" if you can't 1) describe design, 2) demonstrate a difference between design and non-design, 3) give us a list of some things which clearly were designed and some things which clearly weren't.
This is no too much to ask.
If I said the "appearence of UFOs" is the best evidence for UFOs, it would be WELL within the bounds of reason for someone to ask me what constitutes a UFO. Guess what? Not everything in the air is a UFO. Otherwise, hummingbirds are good evidence for UFOs.
Definte your criteria!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 11:57 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 266 of 307 (412880)
07-26-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler
07-26-2007 1:10 PM


Re: What is your point?
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.
Why has Straggler brazenly misrepresented my question? EvC board history tells me that this evolutionist is indirectly attempting to signal a Darwinian Moderator for the purpose of legitimizing his distortion.
Once again: I have listed the Bible as evidence for Creationism, in reply Straggler has presupposed the Bible to not be evidence and other negative descriptions.
In rebuttal I remind Straggler that we were already well aware of Atheist ideological viewpoints concerning the Bible and we ask him again as to what his point is?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2007 1:10 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2007 4:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 267 of 307 (412881)
07-26-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 4:27 PM


Comprehending Evidence
It seems necessary Ray to point out to you what evidence is:
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.
You are being asked for such evidence just as anyone would ask for evidence backing up any statements made by anyone about the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 4:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 268 of 307 (412882)
07-26-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 4:15 PM


Ray's failures to respond documented.
Your 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 231
quote:
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 Designer
Where 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 Dilemma
quote:
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?
Enjoy.
Now 264 posts with no evidence for creation theory ... and counting.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 4:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:24 PM RAZD has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 269 of 307 (412886)
07-26-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Best Positive Evidence
Cold Foreign Object writes:
We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long.
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?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 12:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:27 PM ringo has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 270 of 307 (412888)
07-26-2007 5:08 PM


The Evidence
THREE EVOLUTIONISTS WRITE:
Straggler writes:
http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory
As 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 theory
So 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 theory
Within 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 theory
Well, 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.
CREATIONIST
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.
Now, I have posted 3 different evolutionists (in four posts) recognizing the best positive evidence for Creationism. Straggler's post preceded my post (but acknowledges IC in my post) and Percy and Crashfrog's posts were replies to my post.
Of course the evolutionists disagree, but this IS NOT the subject here, is it?
I do not mind defending our evidence and I welcome it.
We now have a group of evolutionists asserting that design = invisible Designer is somehow illogical. Regardless, it is most logical, and the logic is invulnerable. In reply the evolutionists are special pleading and asserting said logic to be illogical. Design indicating the work of Designer is not illogical. Since these same evolutionists actually believe apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years this could explain why they think design = Designer is illogical. Evolutionists assert that homologous and parahomologous structures and anatomy is evidence of evolution. These arguments are based on the exact same logic as design = Designer.
For every evolutionist who has played the "where is the evidence?" card it was posted in message #91.
I am here, ready and able to defend each positive evidence for Creationism.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 6:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2007 7:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 285 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2007 10:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 288 by Jaderis, posted 07-27-2007 12:08 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2007 9:56 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024