Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Since evolution was never true, and since Darwin proposed his theory when science accepted Paleyan design as true, Creationism has always been true. Evolution claims to be making no statement about God, unlike Creationism. This means, if evolutionists are telling the truth about their theory saying nothing about God, what falsifies Creationism? The appearance of design in nature is real and actual corresponding to the work of invisible Designer. Dawkins has admitted that the appearance is an illusion. Logically, design corresponds to Designer and not mindless processes, unless, of course, you are an Atheist with anti-God needs.Therefore the main positive evidence for Creationism is the obvious reality of design seen in reality.Ray

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

Crashfrog is 100 percent correct. I am ashamed that I left the Bible out.Ray

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

Agreed without any buts attached. Design appearance logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Once the identification correspondence is made we then refer to the most respected and proven and factually infallible source for invisible Designer (the Bible). Of course when this happens, Genesis special creation comes with it, evolution is falsified. This is why evolutionists must fight tooth and nail to deny the appearance of design to be real or actual.Evolution is falsified right here: the same appearance logically does not correspond to an antonym (mindless natural selection). The amount of illogical special pleading that the evolutionist engages in on this specific point is equal to the degree that evolution is based on atheistic presuppositions known as Methodological Naturalism or Materialism.Whence sayest the evolutionist, "our theory says nothing about God"? Wherein everytime the evolutionist denies design to correspond to the work of invisible Designer. The passage system layout and its features (readily available online) corresponds directly to all of the major claims of the Bible once somebody points it out; therefore it is not a matter of opinion, all anyone has to do is LOOK and listen to the explanation since the interior layout of the passages and their features is impossible to change.Ray

Your comments make no sense whatsoever.Ray

Please feel free to add to the list. Said list is not final or exclusionary. I did not incorporate your evidences because I am not familiar with them through study. You can also contribute to the list by initialing items you agree with and asterisk items you disagree with. I read your post outlining these evidences and they are true and very important facts supporting Creationism-ID. Please add them to the list. I have read many physicists talk of these evidences and the are so true. I might add: in Biblical numerology the number five always corresponds to God's grace. Five is the number of grace. We know the Bible is about God's grace extended to fallen man. We both know the extent of God's grace in our personal lives as does every converted believer. Fact: the Earth is the fifth largest planet in our solar system.Ray

Since Atheist-Darwinism (Jar's group) and AiG YECreationism both accept microevolution, this means both groups of Fundamentalists are conducting the same business on opposite sides of the street.Ray Martinez, Paleyan IDist, Old Earth/Young Biosphere Creationist.

Joey: you have made a blatant error. It is an uncontested historical fact: Einstein was an Atheist. Simply do a google search or read Jammer, Einstein the Atheist is not disputed.Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology - Max Jammer - Google BooksRay

Just fine, thanks; and yourself? Last I knew you finally got bored with the Fundies and took a leave of absence?I also see that you are still saying there is no evidence in reality supporting the Octateuch. This means that you are still an Atheist, correct? Would you like to see some evidence of Abraham or Hebrews in Egypt? Let me know?Ray

Thanks, Brian, I will drop you a line sometime. If you want to email me with an address I will send you (free of charge) a copy of the Rutherford chronology. It will give you the Biblical claims. I will also email you with the link when my paper is up since it has much to do with the Bible. I think you find the Biblical arguments most interesting. Wish I had the exciting life you had in going to Spain and so forth.Good luck.Raypyramidial@yahoo.com

Any person of ordinary intelligence can see the illogic (= rhetoric) of the top scenario. The top scenario is a straw man; application of straw man ("In your case"/bottom scenario) makes perfect sense even though it is stated awkwardly.Again, appearance of design logically corresponds to Designer and not an antonym. Again, how is design corresponding to Designer illogical?Of course my question is rhetorical. The logic is invulnerable and any disagreement by said evolutionist tells any objective person everything they need to know about the way evolutionists think (perverted).By RAZDs "logic":Nouns (design) and pronouns (Designer) do not exist (when it comes to biology, of course).Ray

We have.Your "question" above is attempting to evade caused by the inability to refute.Ray