Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,845 Year: 4,102/9,624 Month: 973/974 Week: 300/286 Day: 21/40 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for creation theory
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 97 of 307 (412010)
07-23-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Cold Foreign Object
07-23-2007 1:35 PM


Re: Best Positive Evidence
Cold Foreign Object writes:
BEST POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM
1. 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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-23-2007 1:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2007 2:19 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 301 of 307 (413052)
07-27-2007 1:17 PM


Summation
The argument from design is obviously the most convincing creationist argument - millions worldwide have been persuaded by this argument. Of course, almost none of them are scientists, and the argument from design hasn't yet been formulated into any testable scientific form, but that's not what this thread is asking.
Ironically, the most pure distillation of the argument from design, what we today call intelligent design or just ID, has not only been rejected by US courts, but even by mainstream creationists, because it gives insufficient consideration to Biblical inerrancy. Behe himself accepts an earth that is billions of years old where most of life's diversity developed through natural evolutionary processes, not a position that attracts many Biblical literalists. Most creationists who come here espouse either traditional YEC views or some combination of YEC and ID views. The pure IDist is a rather rare bird these days.
Scientific arguments make testable claims. Whether the world rides upon the back of a giant turtle is a testable claim. Whether there was a worldwide flood 4500 years is a testable claim. Religions that make testable claims about the real world will always conflict with science.
And that is perhaps why the argument from design is so effective and therefore also so insidious. It really makes no scientifically testable claims and so can't be shown wrong by any science.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2007 2:06 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 303 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2007 2:34 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 305 of 307 (413067)
07-27-2007 2:43 PM


I'm not ignoring the replies to me but...
...it's time for summaries. I gave my summary, I'm done.
--Percy

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024