Most convincing evidence for creation theory

True The data falsifies Creationism.For example, how many non-religious young earth geologists do you find? You don't because the data does not support young earth. Consider that 40 percent of life is "designed" to be parasitic what does this say about the designer? Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

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 "".

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.

Respected in your culture, maybe. Many Other cultures disagree.The bible is not proven and it certainly not factually infallible. There are many aspects that falsify the Bible with respect to the nature of the world - lets start at the beginning: the order of appearance of the classes of life is wrong. You do *not* understand falsification. Like i said you do *not* understand falsification - you just do not fully comprehend how well evolution explains the appearance of design.The appearance of design does correspond to natural selection. Natural selection generates appearance of design by filtering better functioning "designs" over the less functioning "designs".Further there are *many* aspects in nature that exist that do not serve to as some optimal survival "appearance of design" feature. Examples include: long tail birds, brightly colored fish and over antlered ungulates. These attributes do not have the "appearance of design" for survival but are byproducts of a sexually selection process. The creationist are those engaging in special pleading. Evolution is based on evidence not special pleading. "Everytime"? You should not use infinitives. There are theist that have a range of beliefs in the activity of the designer in course of evolution - yours "this or that" position is really in the minority.

Oh details, great! What textual evidence do you have in the Bible that is the most convincing in support of creation theory?

Source for one of many creation myths.Nevertheless the topic is "Evidence" not claims - you are confusing claims with evidence.