Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Hi IamJoseph,Could you change the title so it isn't all upper case?Your stated premise is difficult to understand. Taking this one sentence at a time: Would it be an accurate paraphrase to say, "Discussions about any aspect of evolution should include both positive and negative evidence." If this captures your meaning, then I think everyone here already agrees with this. Certainly one of the important roles of moderators is to keep discussion focused on evidence and argument pertinent to the topic.Your next sentence: I think everyone would agree with this, not only "as per Darwin", but also as per the modern synthesis.Your last sentence: Is what you really meant to say is that the validity of evolution cannot be fairly assessed unless the negative evidence is also included? If so, I don't think anyone would argue with this, either.So you haven't really stated a position that anyone could argue with, and of course there's also no specific starting point for discussion.Going by what you said in the "Most Convincing Evidence for Evolution" thread, I think what you really want is a title something like this: And that what you really want for your opening post is to start something like this: You could elaborate from there.If you agree with the feedback, then please edit the OP and then post a response to this message so that I know the edit has been completed. If you don't agree then just reply to this message.Also, both Google and Firefox provide spellcheckers.--Percy

This is very broad. We've found that discussion works better if threads have a clear focus. Here's rule 3:

3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

The way you've described it, moon dust depth, fossils on mountain tops, the shrinking sun, the appearance of design, the lack of transitionals, blood coagulation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the impossibility of creating new information and so forth and so on, would all be on-topic in this thread.In the other thread it seemed clear to me that you were interested in discussing the features of life that evolution can't explain. If I'm wrong about that then just make clear what it is you do want to discuss, but it can't be all anti-evolution arguments combined with all pro-creationism arguments. That's far too broad.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

In that case what I think you really want is a thread complementary to the Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory thread, and the title would therefore be, "Most convincing evidence for creation science". If this is agreeable to you then change the title and the opening post accordingly and I'll promote it.

The title and opening post are unchanged. If you just ran out of time then no problem, do it whenever you have time, but in case there's a misunderstanding let me clarify that you need to change the title and the opening post before I can promote this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There was a bug preventing you from editing the opening post in Message 1. The bug is now fixed. Once you've revised the opening post I'll promote the thread.

You did edit Message 1, because there's now an edit note appended to the end, but you didn't change the text. I just tested the edit function myself and it appears to work. Once you edit the text in Message 1 to describe the topic, I'll promote it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I agree that this thread should contain positive evidence for creation rather than negative evidence against evolution. That's how I envisioned the thread when I promoted it.Evolutionists who wish to participate in this thread should keep their focus on the relative merits of the proposed evidence, rather than just harping about it. The question isn't how convincing some evidence is, but whether, relative to other evidence, it is the most convincing.So far we have one nomination: The appearance of design in nature has been offered as evidence that the universe was designed and created as opposed to being the result of matter and energy following natural laws.Edited by Admin, : Add clarifying phrase.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It looks like Adminnemooseus's concern about this thread quickly becoming a mess was legitimate.This thread should be a discussion to find the most convincing evidence for creationism. The only evidence offered so far is the appearance of design in nature. Those who are pointing out that in their view this isn't very convincing evidence are off-topic. Right now its the most convincing evidence offered so far. True, it wins by default, but only for now and hopefully more entries will come in.Examples of evidence for creation are sea fossils atop mountain peaks, blood coagulation and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not saying whether these constitute good or bad evidence, I'm only providing them as examples of evidence for creation, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I failed to recall that the evidence offered in this thread is intended to be positive evidence *for* creationism, not negative evidence in the form of evidence that evolution is false. As has been pointed out, falsifying one theory does nothing to support its competitors.Examples of positive evidence for creationism would be sea fossils atop mountain peaks, organisms which do not fit our nested hierarchical classification system for life, a single world-wide flood layer, genetic evidence of bottleneck for all species occurring about 4500 years ago, and so forth.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A reminder once again that this thread is for discussing which are the most convincing evidences for creation theory. Their absolute merits do not matter. This is not a search for convincing evidences, but merely the most convincing ones. Evolutionists who wish to discuss how convincing or unconvincing they find these evidences on a more objective scale should do so in another thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The recent discussion does not seem pertinent to the topic, so permit me to note once again that this thread is for discussing what are the most convincing evidences for creation theory.For example, someone might say, "I think sea fossils atop mountain peaks are the most convincing evidence for creation theory." And someone might respond, "I disagree, because the appearance of design applies to the entire universe across the board, and is much more significant and convincing."Anyone who would like to discuss something else should propose a new thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To Creationists,This thread is your opportunity to enumerate the positive evidence for creation. This thread is nearly half done, and very little time has been spent on the thread's topic. I don't see this thread as so important that participants should be pressured back on topic, so if people would rather use the thread's topic as a point of departure for discussing something else then go right ahead, but it does seem to me a significant missed opportunity.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Oh yes, most definitely, no doubt about it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I know I'm just a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, but could someone, anyone, please post something on-topic?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director