Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Positive evidence for creation is abundant throughout the universe but only for the creationist. The evolutionist can see this same evidence and come to a totally opposite conclusion based on a time plus random mutation equation. One can hardly expect a person with the standard evo point of view to accept that a visible star one million light years from earth was created a mere six thousand years ago. That is simply not a logical conclusion and violates laws of physics, not to mention good old common sense.Positive evidence for evolution is abundant throughout the universe but only for the evolutionist. The creationist can see this same evidence and come to a totally opposite conclusion based on a creator with a plan for the ages equation. One can hardly expect to convince a creationist that the beauty, complexity and wonder of nature, let alone the undiscovered wonders of the universe, are nothing more than the result of a big bang which occurred due to unknown but totally impersonable factors.Personally, I do not care for the distinction of creationist or evolutionist. All evolutionists are also creationists and visa versa. Who, or what, the creator is reveals the only meaningful and thought-provoking difference between the two camps. Everything else is just window dressing. Unfortunately, this difference has morphed into an enormous gulf that neither side is interested in bridging.GOD DID IT!NOTHING DID IT!There is no middle ground here and that is most unfortunate. Discussion and debate become pointless when either side becomes so entrenched in positions and ideals that no amount of evidence contrary to those positions and ideals can challenge and stimulate their thought processes . Regardless of which camp holds their favor, without the dual intercourse and exchange of ideas, there can be no gain, real or imagined.Evidence for creation and evolution?Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

I agree completely that we must insist that only POSITIVE evidence for creation be presented. I started studying "creation science" around 1981 and started discussing it on-line (CompuServe) around 1986 and remained active in that discussion on other forums as well until radical changes in my life 5 years ago. During all that time, I have repeatedly requested that creationists present POSITIVE evidence for creation. In all that time, I have NEVER, EVER, received any POSITIVE evidence for creation. Never. Not even from the late Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR, the man who should have definitely known of any such evidence.So I am definitely looking forward to seeing some POSITIVE evidence presented now in this thread.Why do we only see claims of negative evidence against evolution? I'll skip the obvious quip that there is no positive evidence for creation, since I do seriously want to see any actual positive evidence:1. The reason why they came up with creationism in the first place was to replace the "monkey laws" that had kept evolution out of the public schools until they were struck down in 1968.2. "Creation science"'s entire approach was based on their "Two Model Approach" (TMA) which is a false dichotomy. The TMA states that there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins: the creation model and the evolution model. Since they've thus set up an either-or situation in which eliminating one model automatically proves the other, they use this to justify "proving creation" solely by attacking the "evolution model".Hence, since the original purpose of creationism is to attack evolution and the TMA teaches that attacking evolution proves creation, we find creationists only producing "negative evidences" against evolution and never producing any positive evidence for creation. One consequence of this is that, while it is possible that positive evidence for creation could exist, we've never seen it because the creationists have been concentrating on seeking nothing but more ways to attack evolution and science.In just about every single presentation I've seen or heard by Dr. Duane Gish or the late Dr. Henry Morris, both of the ICR and both the superstars of creationism, the very first thing that they would do would be to set up the TMA. While researching a moondust claim I heard Morris make, I wrote to Morris and included a request for any POSITIVE evidence for creation instead of just negative claims against evolution and how would proving evolution wrong possibly prove his version of creation to be right and not some other culture's version. Dr. Morris insisted that negative evidence against evolution was indeed positive evidence for creation. He also restated the TMA and added that the evolution model includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern". In short, their "creation model" is nothing but their particular literalist theology and their "evolution model" is everything else.So I am so looking forward to finally seeing someone present positive evidence for creation.

How can we hope to investigate that? Without a basis for that debate in the form of physical evidence the converstaion can ONLY ever be "window dressing"Science cannot disprove a creator and (whether or not creationists actually believe it) science is not attempting to do this.But science may be able to demonstrate that natural proceses negate the NEED for a creator.
This is not the aim of science but each new significant development does seem to take things further down that path.

So, by definition, the evidence is not objective evidence.Thanks for clearing that up.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

"Nothing did it" is not a claim of evolutionary theory, and never has been. On two levels.1)Evolutionary Theory does not have anything to say about whether or not a God or Gods created the universe, or how the universe came into being.2)Mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are not nothing.

Couldn't have said it better myself! Neither camp has ever produced the "physical evidence" of which you speak that would be satisfactory to the opposite camp. Evolutionists have ample evidence to support their position, as do creationists. Evidence is not the problem.Interpreting that evidence correctly so that the destination acheived is both beneficial and accurate, this is the great challenge with which we are faced. That will most likely never change.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

Considering the title of the topic, and your view that creationists have ample evidence to support their position, would you like to tell us what that ample evidence is? Or at least, some of it?

Thank you for acknowledging that all evidence presented, whether by evo or creo, is not objective evidence and therefore cannot be used scientifically, though many still try, carving and molding the evidence to fit their pre-conceived concepts and ideas.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

The larger question here really boils down to what tool(s) should be used to decide which position best describes reality. I don't think this is a matter of becoming entrenched in a theory, but rather it is about accepting one tool over another.The Creationist tool for deciphering reality is Divine Revelation, the Scientist employs the Scientific Method. In this regards, I don't see it as a matter of accepting evolution or creation, but deciding which method one shall use to arrive at truths about the world.

I suspect the best arguments in the thread will come from Devil's Advocates.This probably should be a topic on its own - primarily because the force of the arguement and i don't really want dilute this thread which I believe will demonstrate the paucity of positive evidence for Creation Science. First off I don't believe phytoplankton are considered parasites - just a nit in your otherwise valid arguement. There are of course many examples of symbiotic and mutualistic parasites that we and other creatures benefit from.However, there a substantial number of parasites whose life cycle is nothing short of diabolic and horrific. There are many parasites who "cheat" and live solely off the flesh of other organisms for its own benefit until the host dies. There also many parasites that don't necessarily kill their host but cause immeasurable pain, anguish and misery.One graphic examples I often reach for in this arguement is the Guinea Worm. A quick look at the images of will turn your stomachHere is a creature that has a complex life cycle that appears to be designed. There are many more like hookworm, tapeworms, malaria, trichinosis, pinworms, liver flukes, roundworms, heart worms, on-and-on that can make Swiss cheese out of your organs.Just to save a posts on this topic: I want to note that these are complex animals that are finely tuned to their hosts and environment. These creature did not some benign existence and took up a more nefarious way of making a living after the "fall". They have the appearance of design and I am glad it is merely an appearance for if they were designed I think you better accommodate for an evil designer in your theology. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed one link. There was a space before one of the "".

It looks like Adminnemooseus's concern about this thread quickly becoming a mess was legitimate.This thread should be a discussion to find the most convincing evidence for creationism. The only evidence offered so far is the appearance of design in nature. Those who are pointing out that in their view this isn't very convincing evidence are off-topic. Right now its the most convincing evidence offered so far. True, it wins by default, but only for now and hopefully more entries will come in.Examples of evidence for creation are sea fossils atop mountain peaks, blood coagulation and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not saying whether these constitute good or bad evidence, I'm only providing them as examples of evidence for creation, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Convincing to whom? That's my point.History shows no matter how convoluted or inconsistent a belief may be, one will not let physical evidence or facts get in the way of accepting the belief. Playing the Devils' Advocate again:I accept Divine Revelation as truth, just as you scientists accept the Scientific Method. If evidence appears at face value to contradict this revelation then it needs to be reconsidered. Such supposed evidence obviously must be innacurately interpreted.So my best evidence for Creationism is Divine Revelation itselfEdited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I would argue that the theory of evolution was formed as a result of the evidence. Creationism on the other hand existed prior to any evidence and remains stubbornly unchanged in the face of evidence. The assessment of evidence to obtain objective conclusions is the whole point of the scientific method.
Prediction and corroboration are extremely difficult to simulate if the theory in question is not actually a true reflection of reality.
The fact that, for example, fossil evidence was interpreted in such a way that it is entirely consistent with the findings of genetics before genetics had even been discovered adds a great deal of weight to the evolutionary position.Creationism however makes no predictions and no has no corroboration between independent fields of study. It is merely an ad-hoc amalgam of alternative explanations for individual pheomenon.This thread is about the 'best' creationist arguments so if there is anything that can compare to, for example, the verification of evolutionary history as concluded from fossil evidence by genetics then now is the time to present it............. Over to you to tell us about the creationist evidence as, so far, this thread has not presented much along that line despite that supposedly being it's main aim.

I failed to recall that the evidence offered in this thread is intended to be positive evidence *for* creationism, not negative evidence in the form of evidence that evolution is false. As has been pointed out, falsifying one theory does nothing to support its competitors.Examples of positive evidence for creationism would be sea fossils atop mountain peaks, organisms which do not fit our nested hierarchical classification system for life, a single world-wide flood layer, genetic evidence of bottleneck for all species occurring about 4500 years ago, and so forth.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The admins have voiced concerns about being off-topic, so I'll just point out your poor reading comprehension skills (and concerning your own post, too!) and leave it at that.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger