Most convincing evidence for creation theory

It's not a matter of rejecting the evidence out of hand, but of showing how the assumptions behind the interpretations of the evidence are false -- not the evidence. Don't be disingenuous.These are PRATTs -- so far these are the "BEST" evidence presented, so lets see what they claim to show:

• our galaxy is a few hundred million years old
• the current earth land mass is 15 million years old
• the current ocean floors are 15 million years old
• the ocean salt is 42 million years old
• the current magnetic field is 10,000 years old
• 20 geological horizons buried trees before the decayed
• some rock strata were bent and folded "less than thousands of years" after forming
• atmospheric helium took 2 million years to reach current atmospheric density
• helium retention in deep rocks is millions of years old
• neanderthal and cro-magnon fossils accumulated over a few hundred years

Looking at this list I don't see ONE of them that shows that the universe is 6,000 years old or any other element that could be considered evidence FOR the YEC model of creation.What they show is a wild scattering of results,and all but 3 would still invalidate the YEC model, and those 3 do not speak to age. The conclusion I reach is that this is a list of arguments designed to show that current scientific models are incorrect rather than to show that the YEC creation model is correct. Thus this still misses the requirements of the OP for evidence FOR creationism.Where is the evidence that the YEC model is correct?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 3 not 2

---

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 can be taken as generic evidence of fine tuning of life to the universe we know OR fine tuning of the universe for the life we know.Taking it as generic evidence for the latter, how does this support biblical creationism versus hindu, aztec, deist etc creation?If the evidence does not support your specific religion it is not evidence for it.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.

While that's obviously a good idea in general, it wouldn't really fit the O.P. title, would it? Several of us (myself included) have been guilty of arguing against creationism on the thread, which we shouldn't really be doing.It's a bit much to expect a creationist to break the O.P. rules in order to present evidence against creationism. If they did follow your advice not to cherry-pick, the thread would be blank, and there wouldn't be such a thing as "Creation Science" anyway. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

The problem that these are not evidence at all.... I will just pick a couple because i promised my wife not to post again. On last time... You see there is evidence here but your last sentence jumps to the conclusion. There are many examples of forests being buried for a variety of reasons some fossilized some on their way. This is one that the Creationist really need to drop. It is well known that rock will bend under the high temperature and huge hydrostatic pressures - it is called plastic deformation. These are not the conditions that we are normally use to so it is hard for us to understand. But many brittle materials such as rock and concrete will bend plasticly when under high pressure and temperature over long periods of time (creep). Some time folded rock formations will even have fossils that have also been deformed with the folding.

As Bluejeans has correctly stated, this thread is not about contradictory aspects of creation theory. There are a number of significant and prominent aspects of the majority creationist hypothesis which contradict my personal one as no doubt you are aware by now.Feel free to critique my wholistic approach perse. The examples cited in it are significant given the planet as we observe it could not function without every one of these absolutely essential corroborative aspects which collectively are good evidence for ID creationism hypothesis. Using the chain analogy, one link of what I've cited would render life on planet earth which we observe impossible.The Biblical creationist model fits the ticket quite nicely, for the most part offering a reasonable logical solution for explanation when the more thermodynamically compatible interpretation is applied as my own hypothesis has put forth in past threads here at EvC.Imo it's far more probable and logical for so great a number of harmonious corroborative aspects cited to be intelligently designed than for them all to have beaten the great odds corroboratively in needful relative harmony by natural and random processes, not to mention all the other multitudes of necessary things that I have not mentioned in my brief example list.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

No. Consider the BB theory. CMB was PREDICTED as a logical and mathematical consequence of the theory. It had never been detected or even considered prior to that.The theory in question did not just predict the existence of an as yet undeteced phenomenon it provided an actual specific measurable figure for the expected value that should be detectable if the theory were indeed true.The CMB was then detected with the specific measurement predicted and BB theory considered to be wholly vindicated.That is convincing evidence. That is not dependent on who is evaluating the evidence or taking the measurements. If creationists want to measure the CMB for themselves they are free to do so.Do any of your evidences have anything that compares with the above in terms of prediction or corroboration?If not it can hardly be said that they are equally viable as you are claiming.I am asking you to put forward one of your evidences as the most convincing on the basis of prediction and/or independent corroboration.The OP requests one example in detail rather than a list.
It has to be said that the non-creationist equivelent thread had no problem at all meeting that criteria.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buz in summary you seem to be saying that the appearance of design is effectively evidence of design.This argument has been put forwards within this thread as the best evidence for creationism already.You are making your argument on a cosmic scale with specific reference to the interdependency between the various components rather than the more limited context in which it was previously raised.That is fair enough and a point worth makingBut in terms of the OP and the discussion so far your argument does amount to "Apparent design is best explained by actual design" does it not?

The problem is Buz what you put forward seems to be just more total nonsense statements and false statements, ones that folk have explained to you time after time, yet you continue to repeat them. For example: There isn't a precise position of the sun, moon, earth so far as distance, size, temperature, lightrays et al. Not only is that false, it also happens to be a totally nonsensical statement and one folk have explained to you many times in the past. In reality, the earth's distance from the sun varies by over 3 million miles every year.The earth does not stay in one place, and the distance from the sun varies throughout its orbit.In addition, exactly the same claims could be made about any objects anywhere. Another silly assertion that has no meaning whatsoever. Huh?I can go down the whole list but there is not a single one of them that can be supported and most are just jabberwocky collections of words that really mean nothing.Your wholistic approach just means that the best support for Biblical Creationism is a collection of Lies.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Thanks for mentioning my favourite volcano. I was on Anak Krakatoa for half a day sixteen years ago. Fascinating place. It was about 60 years old then, with a patch of young rain forest on one side, already teeming with small creatures, and a beach of black cinders with crabs all over it. Great day, but off topic.Actually, maybe it's not so off-topic. Can I count it as convincing eyewitness evidence that creation is still going on?Doesn't really fit the classic six day version though.

A reminder once again that this thread is for discussing which are the most convincing evidences for creation theory. Their absolute merits do not matter. This is not a search for convincing evidences, but merely the most convincing ones. Evolutionists who wish to discuss how convincing or unconvincing they find these evidences on a more objective scale should do so in another thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What data? You are attempting to have things both ways. On one hand you assert ToE has nothing to say about God (either way) and yet here you are contradicting yourself in the very next sentence. If you are talking about data used to support ToE THEN ToE is making a statement about God via Creationism.I predict Darwinist will evade the specifics like a mofo. The blue box was evaded so I re-typed it.The positive evidence for Creationism is the blatant design seen in nature. Bat sonar, human eye, IC, ant colonies, double helix, etc.etc.Ray

Once again, the appearance of design seen in nature corresponds to invisible Designer, logically. Show me where I made this bare assertion?Of course I made no such bare assertion, you are misrepresenting because you cannot refute. Simply asserting that apparent design is not actual design does not make actual design apparent design. Besides engaging in the usual blatant misrepresentations that evolutionists routinely do, you have, in this case forgotten that this topic is about the best positive evidence for Creationism: again, the answer is the appearance of design seen in nature and in its inhabitants. We know Darwinsts deny that design = invisible Designer. I think you should refrain from derailing this topic with well known Darwinian claims about how apparent design is interpreted.I predict you will be unable to refrain and you will repeat yourself and/or misrepresent my prose responses to a simple topic subject once again.Ray

Half-right, anyway. 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 is 100 percent correct. I am ashamed that I left the Bible out.Ray