Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Phrased as a "genuine" question, it is, in fact, a rhetorical question denying the evidence to be evidence, probably due to the inability to refute.In addition, Creationism is not a theory per se in the way evolution is a theory of how nature came to be without the aid of a Divine Being. Creationism is an observation - the hallmark of science. Creationism says that reality and scientific data is best explained to be the work of invisible Divine power. Since 45 percent of all Americans, according to polling data are Creationists, this fact means tens of millions of persons see reality as I just described; therefore, the main scientific evidence for Creationism is observational reality. Cannot see or connect reality to be the work of Divine power? This is Atheism or Darwinism.Ray

Since I initiated said evidence, you are mistaken. Logically, appearance of design is evidence of design. How else should design appearance be interpreted? It is the evolutionist who special pleads the appearance, RAZD. You are forgetting the subject of this topic and there have been at least 3 major evolutionists who have already objectively recognized that from the Creationist perspective, design indicating invisible Designer is prima facie evidence for Creationism. Awkwardly stated, but still true. Since every snowflake is different but generally the same, that is, a snowflake, we have face value evidence of special creation. No special pleading required. Absurd misrepresentation or bad joke. Keep your day job, RAZD.RAY: "Again, how is design corresponding to Designer illogical?"RAZD: "Because you have not refuted apparent design produced by random processes. Claiming this does not make it happen, as nature is surprisingly unimpressed by your opinion of what it can and cannot do."RAY: We already know that Atheist-Darwinism special pleads the appearance to not correspond to Designer, what is your point RAZD? How did stepping stone evolution create bat echolocation and leave the flying creature with the ability to navigate a lightless cave and secure prey? Will you assert a macromutation or single step selection?Since random processes are not really random when one forces the evolutionist to cough up a definition of random, you are, via sock puppet, providing the intelligence and guidance to the selection process. Biology Teachers have said natural selection has no specific direction, yet this contradicts published data ad nauseum which says natural selection has the ability to direct in a general direction. Here we have two sets of evolutionists quibbling over two synonyms. The point is that NS is guided, by the minds of Darwinists, ad hoc and after the fact.Ray

I have read your argument several times now through and through. The above sentence appears to be your rhetorical conclusion. Let me critique your two methods: ....is the conventional human design argument intended to represent, as a general model, like you said, "Intelligent Design." The problem with this scenario is that it is narrow in its definition as to what constitutes ID. Your description sounds like the minutes of a board meeting attempting to streamline costs without reducing quality and efficiency. I agree that said description corresponds to human design objectives in general. But human designers are not limited to this model. There is nothing simple about modern rocket engines or spacecraft navigation systems. While both strive for the goals you outline, neither can be considered simple and comprehensible by one person or even a small group. Both are the product of teams of intelligent persons working at the height of their capabilities. Engines and navigation systems clearly correspond to any given organism and their unique complexities, features and abilities, whether a dolphin or a bat.Except for my ending point, the conventional analogy to human design is a straw man since the issue is ID by Divine Being. Paley is correct: organisms correspond to watches in their arranged complexity. It is perfectly logical and sensible to conclude living organisms and their designs to be real - the product of invisible Designer. ....is the evolutionary interpetation of Paley's watches. This interpretation is comparable to a map of the United States with everything normal except Rhode Island is depicted to be the size of Texas and Texas is depicted to be the size of Rhode Island. In other words, alleged sub-optimality is blown out of proportion and the Swiss chronometer is hand-waved away. And the proposed interpretation has no satisfying explanation for organism functionality during the under construction process. Organized complexity is real. This second method or explanation does not correspond to living organisms - organisms which command the intellect of our brightest scientists to explain. Logically, Divine intelligence crafted said objects since it takes many persons with Ph.D.s to figure them out and disect how they work, none being alike, and each exhibiting differences in complexities that are comparable and correspond to Intelligence.I simply assert that your assertion as to which scenario explains reality better is evidently inferior to the ID explanation. Since each is different how is special creation implausible? But you are dismissing on philosophical grounds - correct?At face value snowflakes correspond to special creation.Ray

Let's start with the textual evidence, the Bible.Ray

My point was that Creationism is a major view - that's all. This meant that anyone who turns their nose up to design = Designer needs to be reminded that it is not an obscure pet viewpoint held by some cult living in the desert.And logic is not a fallacy. OTOH, 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? Design corresponding to invisible Designer means that any Deity could be the Designer. Once the identification is made, that is, once design is recognized to be real or actual then at the same time an invisible Designer comes with it. 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. Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly? Once design is accepted as real then we say that the Biblical God is the Designer. This means Darwinism is false and special creation remains true. Do you understand what I am saying?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. Innuendo.Ray

The Bible is the source for Creation "theory."Ray

We already know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes the Bible to not be evidence, what is your point?Ray

In other words, you refuse to scroll back and address the posts where the evidence is listed, or you have and decided that you cannot refute which explains the "what evidence?" card that you are playing.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

UFO phenomena presents no conflict with Biblical creation. At least 40 percent of American Christians accept human evolution which does contradict Biblical creation.Ray

It is not a matter of opinion: ToE says God does not exist in reality. This is the most undisputed claim of your theory. If Darwinists would brazenly lie about this fundamental claim then just think what they do with complicated scientific evidence?Ray

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? If true, again: we know Atheists deny the Bible to be evidence, please tell us your point? "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.Again, we already know Atheists believe the Bible to not be credible, unreliable, non-objective and inferior to physical evidence, what is your point?Ray

Yes, are you familiar with the book of Genesis?The various books of the Bible were written to record facts and knowledge that would otherwise be lost to mankind due to time, weather and adverse conditions. Much like the long list of 155 Palestinian cities engraved at Karnak by Sosenk that have never been identified.Ray

This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE. This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist?Creationists already know that Atheists deny Creationism to have any evidence which leaves us wondering as to what is RAZD's point?Ray

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. But my point in the other post was that, like Karnak, the recording of information is so that it is not lost. We know that at least 17 out of 155 cities have been identified. Nobody would doubt the existence of the others, why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula?Ray

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