Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Your comment's intended for the O.P. guys, of course, but I just wanted to suggest that we don't debate the points presented actually on this thread, but start new threads on them if we want to. Otherwise, it will quickly go off topic, and turn into a headache for moderators.I eagerly await the first piece of "convincing evidence".

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.Not an argument for YEC as such but for ID integrated with evolution and the need for the presence of a 'creator' of some sort.At the very least this seems to ask a question that evolutionary biologists then needed to answer.However it is still a largely negative argument of the 'evolution must be wrong because...' type rather than positive evidence for design.It also suffers from the fact that the specific claims of irreducible complexity have since been widely refuted.BUT it at least posed a meaningful challenge to evolutionary theory and I have not seen many creationsit arguments that do that.

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.

Since evolution was never true, and since Darwin proposed his theory when science accepted Paleyan design as true, Creationism has always been true. Evolution claims to be making no statement about God, unlike Creationism. This means, if evolutionists are telling the truth about their theory saying nothing about God, what falsifies Creationism? The appearance of design in nature is real and actual corresponding to the work of invisible Designer. Dawkins has admitted that the appearance is an illusion. Logically, design corresponds to Designer and not mindless processes, unless, of course, you are an Atheist with anti-God needs.Therefore the main positive evidence for Creationism is the obvious reality of design seen in reality.Ray

True The data falsifies Creationism.For example, how many non-religious young earth geologists do you find? You don't because the data does not support young earth. Consider that 40 percent of life is "designed" to be parasitic what does this say about the designer? Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

I agree that this thread should contain positive evidence for creation rather than negative evidence against evolution. That's how I envisioned the thread when I promoted it.Evolutionists who wish to participate in this thread should keep their focus on the relative merits of the proposed evidence, rather than just harping about it. The question isn't how convincing some evidence is, but whether, relative to other evidence, it is the most convincing.So far we have one nomination: The appearance of design in nature has been offered as evidence that the universe was designed and created as opposed to being the result of matter and energy following natural laws.Edited by Admin, : Add clarifying phrase.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you have some positive evidence for the creationist position then here is the place to present it.Simply asserting that creationism is true doesn't count as evidence.
Simply asserting that apparent design can only be due to actual design also does't count as evidence.If you read the thread thus far you will see that positive evidence for creationism is what is required. Do you have any?

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.

I am not a Creationist or ID'r but will play Devil's Advocate here:It would imply the Creator studied his Biology. Creationist would claim that the designer realised the importance that parasites play in the viability of an ecosystem, and within more complex organisms.Microgranisms and parasites play a very important role in oxidation and reduction reactions, which in turn play an important role in sustaining the chemical composition of Earth's oceans and atmosphere.
For example, marine phytoplankton produces a large chunk of the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.The organisms make the environment more habitable for higher life forms.

Thank you for trying to prevent a "Gish Gallop". Hope it works.PS
Please read post #1 first. Even though the name assigned to it is "IamJoseph", the message posted there is by Doddy. Therefore, I am responding to Doddy, not to IamJoseph.Edited by dwise1, : Added PS

Behe's argument does appear at first glance to be a good one. That makes it better than most. However as far as being a "good" argument there are two views on that. One is from the perspective we are taking here: does it support creationism and the other is the real view of the ID'ers: does it fool the right people.As for the first:
1)It fails because (as noted above) it is not positive evidence for creationism.
2)It fails because it is an argument from incredulity. It doesn't prove that IC systems can't evolve it just can't imagine how.
3) If fails because it starts off by not arguing against the evolutionary model. It commences with a strawman by saying that the model demands single, individual steps and disallowing pre-adaptation (ie. the analogy to scaffolding).
4) Finally it has failed totally since IC systems have been show to be evolvable.For the second:
1) It works because it sounds very scientific.
2) It works because it talks about the history of cellular processes that don't fossilize and require detailed examination to determine a possible pathway.
3) It works because the strawman it uses is about what it's audience thinks evolution is.
4) It works because it is what one of it's major audience wants to hear.
5) It appeared to work because it looked like it might fool the courts. Too bad about that one.

Parasitic organisms are indeed essential in nature as we know it.An omnipotent designer should however be able to design an ecosystem that does not rely on the sort of suffering and brutality that parasitic organisms result in.The gist of IceAges point remains unanswered.Why design a system whereby such parasites are so essential? Why not create an ecosystem that does not require the suffering, brutality and destruction that we see inherent in nature as we know it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The reply will be because the Fall of Man brought suffering into the world. It is hard to debate a belief because any situation or evidence can always be molded to fit a religious theology. It can be explained away as the will of God.The question for this thread would probably be better stated 'What is the best Argument for Creationism?'.The Physical evidence available is the same for both the Scientist and Creationist. Creationists will simply mold physical evidence to fit a religious view, and deny any evidence that outright contradicts it.

Yes this is very true and becoming more apparent as the conversation develops.
However the argument does need to be based on, and consistent with, physical evidence.Irreducible complexity and the apparent design evident in nature are the only two arguments put forward so far. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That's one of the reasons that some of us attack religious faith directly.However, as you're playing Devil's advocate, the O.P. says convincing evidence. There's no evidence, convincing or otherwise, for the existence of an entity who created parasites to plague us because of something our ancestors did. The creationist side on this thread has yet to present a scrap of evidence for the creation or the creator.