Most convincing evidence for creation theory

I retract. My point is that the *appearance* of design, whether "apparent" (Browne 2002) or "actual" (Paley and Dembski) or "illusory" (Dawkins 1986) logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer. Since the topic only asks for the best positive evidence for Creationism I do not have any burden to prove - only to present and list. At face value the appearance of design, that is, the observation of design indicates invisible Mind. It is Evolution that special pleads the appearance to correspond to an antonym. That's nice that you and Crashfrog have the objectivity to admit. Okay.BEST POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM1. 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.Ray

Rhetorically speaking, since when is chronological a synonym for evolution? Genesis records miracle after miracle, including, of course, special creation miracles. Your commentary above is theistic evolution corruption, and when we remember that TEists are Darwinists all is explained instantly.Ray

I have to assume here that you are listing these as seperate entities and not a collaboration because...If 1 is true, then 3 and 6 are false.If either 3 or 6 is true, then 1 is false.2 and 4 are not evidence, they are catagories of evidence. And, rather tellingly, they are empty catagories. If I said, "The best evidence for evolution was the fossil record" but then could not produce a single fossil, there'd be a problem.And #5 is negative evidence, if it were true, which it isn't. Even if there were no transitional fossils (there are), that would not be evidence for Creation. It seems like you think that "Creation" is the default answer (ie if the light is not on, it's off). This is not either or. Falsifying evolution (which you haven't done) does not provide evidence for Creation.

Well, let's look at your list and see how it compares with that of another fundy, Buz. While some might see the Bible as positive evidence, they have to provide some reason for it to be given anymore weight than the Norse Mythology or any other creation myths. About the only one that might have any validity, and that is only weak support unless it was possible to show that the appearance of design equated to design. Another of the false assertions. As we learn more and more about the pre-Cambrian period we are finding more and more examples that show the Cambrian Explosion was simply a continuation and took far longer than we once thought. That might be a reasonable piece of evidence should anyone show such a thing and had it not been proven that irreducibly complex things can be created without a designer.Unfortunately, IC has been shown to arise without a designer and so gets tossed on the trash heap. This also might be a good one if it were true. Of course, it is false and so not much evidence at all. Although I see no way you could even vaguely connect that with support for creation theory, it also is one that until you can actually support, gets tossed into the trash heap.So it looks like your list is about as holy as the other fundy's list.It appears to be based on nothing but a collection of outright false assertions and unsupported fantasy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your "logic" has a giant flaw in that it relies on a magical entity.According to your concept, it is FAR more "logical" that a magic designer came down and poofed the Eiffel Tower in place given the astronomical number of pieces which had to fit together perfectly in order for it to appear as it does.In fact, is there ANYTHING which the designer did NOT create using this logic? My McDonalds Hamburger contains a number of pieces (sliced tomatos for example do not appear in nature. In fact, a sliced tomato could not survive), therefore doesn't it stand to reason that it was magically created? Forget the fact that I can talk to the 16year old who actually sliced the tomato. Forget that I can watch the process of a burger being assembled - the BEST answer is that it was magic, because that answer BEST fits your preconcieved notion that there is a designer.

no. an omnipotent designer can do whatever he likes. an omnibenevolent densigner should be able to design an ecosystem that does not rely on the sort of suffering and brutality that parasitic organisms result in.minor difference there.

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.Scientists in general wouldn't consider #1, the Bible, to be evidence, and would consider #5, lack of transitional species, to be false.Very few people of any persuasion would consider numerological claims about the Great Pyramid to be evidence in favor of creationism, or of anything at all, for that matter.--Percy

What "all evidences negate this premise?"Do you mean this evidence? Your "grunts and coos" are really all speech is (along with hissing) but breath control and specialized neurons have allowed humans to make rapid vocalizations in one breath and to learn said vocalizations (and the abiliy to learn new vocalizations is being studied in other mammals as well).Our physiology more than anything is what allows us to have the ability to speak (we could have the neurological ability, but without the musculature, the descended larynx and descended hyoid we would not have vocal speech, although we would most likely have some form of sign language and writing supplemented by your "grunts and coos") and physiology can be determined through fossils. You've been asked to prove this in many other threads. This cannot be used as "most convincing evidence for creation theory" if you have nothing to back it up. Arguments from incredulity (ie "I can't believe that humans spoke for hundreds of thousands/millions of years without learning how to write sooner") don't cut it. If by "totally disregarded" you mean studied, comtemplated, debated, wrote about and, even used as a basis for his descent through modification theory (meaning that lingusitic evolution followed a similar path and was known about before his time) then, yes, I completely agree with you. Explain please. Edited by Admin, : Fix link.Edited by Jaderis, : Admin beat me to it

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

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."

"Should be able to" does not mean "should want to". Straggler's statement is correct.You say "no" and then follow this with another correct statement about an omnipotent designer, and then an incorrect one about an omnibenevolent designer (who should want to design an ecosystem without suffering and brutality, but is not necessarily able to).Minor difference there

ha! true indeed. i guess what i was getting at was that there's no reason for an omnipotent designer to avoid brutality and pain just because we think it's nasty.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

So the "best" evidence is affirming the consequent and the argument from incredulity, combined with assuming the bible is true to prove that the bible is true.Sounds about right to me.

---

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.

A room is opened and the lights turned on revealing 10 living people and one dead person with a knife in his chest.The evidence shows that one person is a murderer, but no-one can be singled out.You walk in and point to one person you believe looks like a murderer and say "he did it" ...The evidence does NOT support that conclusion.You buy a lottery ticket and tell the lottery company that they should just pay you the million dollars because you believe you have the winning ticket: the evidence shows that someone will definitely win, but not that you will definitely win.This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm

quote:

---

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

​

If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)

---

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.

But science can speak volumes about what is on "THIS side of creation" ... and it has. The is evidence of what the creation IS, regardless of what anyone believes it is. I see in Message 81 that you believe in an old universe\earth.Long post, but it still does not provide any positive evidence for creation.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : oec

---

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.

Ray you forgot my significant one which is bonafide and was submitted forthrightly.7. The quantitive factor.If you have only one or two evidences, you have no argument for your hypothesis. The more evidences you have for ID creationism, that is evidences of factors required for life to exist which are supportive of ID, the more of a case you have for substantiating your hypothesis. My list of examples are just a few of the many which could be cited.

---

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