Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Please explain the model and rational for that assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem is Buz what you put forward seems to be just more total nonsense statements and false statements, ones that folk have explained to you time after time, yet you continue to repeat them. For example: There isn't a precise position of the sun, moon, earth so far as distance, size, temperature, lightrays et al. Not only is that false, it also happens to be a totally nonsensical statement and one folk have explained to you many times in the past. In reality, the earth's distance from the sun varies by over 3 million miles every year.The earth does not stay in one place, and the distance from the sun varies throughout its orbit.In addition, exactly the same claims could be made about any objects anywhere. Another silly assertion that has no meaning whatsoever. Huh?I can go down the whole list but there is not a single one of them that can be supported and most are just jabberwocky collections of words that really mean nothing.Your wholistic approach just means that the best support for Biblical Creationism is a collection of Lies.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Once again Buz simply refuses to support his assertions and instead misrepresents what was posted.There was no member bashing in my post, I simply pointed out that your wholistic approach just means that the best support for Biblical Creationism is a collection of false and meaninless statements.As a matter of fact, in Message 65 you said "Feel free to critique my wholistic approach perse. " That is exactly what I am doing.You need to stop misrepresenting what others post Buz because as everyone can see, in Message 68 I critique your holistic approach.I cannot help it if you assert that the best evidence for Creation Theory is a collection of false allegations and meaningless assertions.AbE:I happen to believe that the Universe is created, but base that belief on faith and the appearance of continuity at the most basic level.The thread asks for "Most convincing evidence for creation theory" though and I must in all honesty say that the evidence for any creation theory is at best, weak. I must admit that my belief in creation is NOT based on any strong evidence, but rather a belief that there is a GOD who is the Creator.Edited by jar, : add my take on creation

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, let's look at your list and see how it compares with that of another fundy, Buz. While some might see the Bible as positive evidence, they have to provide some reason for it to be given anymore weight than the Norse Mythology or any other creation myths. About the only one that might have any validity, and that is only weak support unless it was possible to show that the appearance of design equated to design. Another of the false assertions. As we learn more and more about the pre-Cambrian period we are finding more and more examples that show the Cambrian Explosion was simply a continuation and took far longer than we once thought. That might be a reasonable piece of evidence should anyone show such a thing and had it not been proven that irreducibly complex things can be created without a designer.Unfortunately, IC has been shown to arise without a designer and so gets tossed on the trash heap. This also might be a good one if it were true. Of course, it is false and so not much evidence at all. Although I see no way you could even vaguely connect that with support for creation theory, it also is one that until you can actually support, gets tossed into the trash heap.So it looks like your list is about as holy as the other fundy's list.It appears to be based on nothing but a collection of outright false assertions and unsupported fantasy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in one post.In addition to including numerous falsehoods and outright nonsensical assertions, what does any of that have to do with what you quoted?I said: Now exactly what support do you have for the Bible being given more weight than any other creation myth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but unless you can provide some more info, I need to call: unless you can support: The only Google reference I can find are messages YOU have posted. In addition, I can find no book called MultiVerse and no connection between either the comics of that name or the Michael Morcock references in his SF to an author of that name.I tend to think this is like your fantasy calendar and many of the other fantasies you've posted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry, but do you have any reasons why the Bible should be given more weight than any other creation myth?Why is the Biblical Myth and more valid than the Egyptian Myth or the Norse Myth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but your first link is to some other forum where someone makes such a claim, and at your second link, the only result for "Roger Penfold" is for a clerk at some parrish council Can't you ever get anything right?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As I point out in Message 8, even the appearance of design is not actually present when you honestly look at living creatures and what is seen definitely does not show signs of intelligence.A big issue is that the designer, if one exists, is too stupid to adopt good ideas. As I pointed out in the other thread, one hallmark of design is that those ideas that are better get incorporated across all lines. No Ray, the appearance of design, even if it really did exist, does not support Intelligent Design, but on examination it supports exactly the type of design we would expect from an undirected system such as Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion