Best evidence for Creation

I rarely get involved in the Evo/Creo debate because I don't know enough about evolution to discuss it with any confidence.As far as creation goes, I have obviously studied the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis, and have studied and taught a range of creation stories from around the world.What I would like to discuss here is the evidence FOR creation.When I do read a evo/creo thread, or discuss the topic with 'street-preachers', what they consider to be their best argument is that 'evolution is only a theory', or they might mention 'missing links'. However, this is not the kind of 'evidence' I am looking for, I would like to see evidence FOR creation, and not just evidence against evolution because IF evolution is incorrect this doesn't mean that creation is true.So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?

Most convincing evidence for creation theoryI'll promote this but I think a perusal of the above closed thread would be a good idea too.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Just a quick question Brian. Does scripture count as evidence? Would reciting passages from the bible be enough to justify their athunticity or are you looking for scientific evidence? Just curious since I can see one form of evidence more forthcoming than the other.

Why should the unsupported contents of an old series of books count for evidence?I mean, if you go that route, then all ancient texts are evidence for their own brands of creationism, and the whole thing becomes moot. Hell, why restrict it to old texts? Harry Potter has just as much relevance to real-world events and locations as the Bible - clearly reciting passages from Harry Potter should justify the authenticity of the novel!Watch out everyone, VOLDEMORT is out to GET you!Sarcasm aside, the claims of an ancient text are utterly worthless without objective corroboration. It doesn't matter how widespread the text is, it doesn't matter if the text has prophesies fulfilled within itself, and it doesn't matter how many people believe in it. Without corroboration with objective, verifiable evidence for each claim, the text is worthless.If we found an ancient chronicle of a dynasty in Egypt that claimed Egypt took part in a series of wars and various supernatural events occurred, we would not simply take the text to be "gospel" truth. Instead, we would need to search for objective evidence to back up the claims of the text. If some of the claims are verified, then it becomes more likely that other claims may also be true - but as always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even if the text was 100% accurate so far as verifiable history is concerned, if the text also claimed that a lion spoke or that the Pharaoh was a living god, those claims would still not be verified by the authenticity of the remainder and would require their own extraordinary evidence to support them.Likewise, when the Bible makes claims of who begat who or where this or that city was located or who was governor at what time, we can verify these things or even just accept some of them because they are everyday occurrences that are not unusual in teh least. Lineage is accepted, locations and governors and time periods can be verified with objective evidence. But when the Bible claims that the Earth was created in 6 days, or the entire planet was flooded, or the Exodus story, or any of the other supernatural claims in the Bible, the verified portions in no way support the unverified portions. They give us a reason to look for supporting evidence, sure...but they don't constitute evidence themselves.And when we look in all the places the evidence should be for things like the Flood or the Exodus of a young Earth and find either nothing at all or directly contradictory evidence, there's no reason to accept the Biblical claims at all.

I think this fossil that I've linked to in another thread is the best evidence I've seen for creation. The claim is that this is best explained as Adam's footprint when he was out walking his pet dinosaur before the fall. Beat that!

Dang it Blugenes you beat me to it

Hi Reuh,I would take the Bible as evidence, but we would need to enquire about the reliability of the evidence.I am the same about evidence for the existence of God, the Bible and the people who believe in God are both evidence for the existence of God, just not very good evidence IMO.So I would like scientific evidence to support for which ever scripture(s) is/are being presented.What I don't want is "it was a pig's tooth, so creation is true."What would be good would be if someone who perhaps suggests that the Judeo/Christian creation myth is true, then they could tell us what we would expect to see in the fossil record, and does the evidence support it.This is only one angle, I am sure our creo friends must have lots of others.

The problem is that it is impossible to find anything that is not evidence for biblical creation. Since biblical creation was a miraculous act, any discovery is completely compatible with the belief that that is just the way god chose to work his miracle. If a species of ruminant were to be found in Nepal that had pvc pipe for veins, wooden bones, and vinyl skin, that would, of course, be completely compatible with god's miraculous creation. It would, of course, be absolutely disastrous for evolution, Darwinian or otherwise. If a new analysis of astronomic data showed that all the stars and galaxies are actually no more than 6000 light years from earth, that would be evidence in support of creationism. But even finding that stars and galaxies extend out 13 billion light years supports creation since god could have just as easily created a spread out universe as a compact one.The 'miracle' of modern science is that it has discovered so many theories of extremely limited scope that have been supported by all the evidence at hand. Theories, such as general relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution - particularly Darwinian evolution - are so specific in their predictions and so constrained in their range that they would be absolutely trivial to falsify with simple tests. It's just that no tests to date have been able to do that.

If you look closely at the footprint, the "human" heel is over the right digit of the "dino" while the "dino's" middle digit is over the middle part of the humanish foot. Explain that. Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

If the dino print was made first (in pretty viscose mud) then the humanish print was laid down on top you might get what is shown.However, that brings up a big problem. If the mud was viscose enough that they dino print went down only what looks like a couple of cms how did the smaller print get in so deep?

One thing that bothers me--it doesn't look like a footprint made during a natural stride. With a natural stride the heel hits first, the foot rolls forward, and finally you push off with the forward part of the foot, ending with the toes.This footprint looks like it was made from the top down, lacking that particular look of a striding foot. I'd like to see what some of the forensic folks say--they know an awful lot about how a foot behaves under various conditions.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The prints are perfectly explained if the hominid is committing an act of beastiality with the saurid (or visa versa. Beastiality is a little hard to define with the hominids and saurids of that era.)

Creation. Self-evident.

This thread is in the science forum. Scientists normally offer evidence for their statements.Have you any evidence to share with us?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.