Most convincing evidence for creation theory

I have to assume here that you are listing these as seperate entities and not a collaboration because...If 1 is true, then 3 and 6 are false.If either 3 or 6 is true, then 1 is false.2 and 4 are not evidence, they are catagories of evidence. And, rather tellingly, they are empty catagories. If I said, "The best evidence for evolution was the fossil record" but then could not produce a single fossil, there'd be a problem.And #5 is negative evidence, if it were true, which it isn't. Even if there were no transitional fossils (there are), that would not be evidence for Creation. It seems like you think that "Creation" is the default answer (ie if the light is not on, it's off). This is not either or. Falsifying evolution (which you haven't done) does not provide evidence for Creation.

Your "logic" has a giant flaw in that it relies on a magical entity.According to your concept, it is FAR more "logical" that a magic designer came down and poofed the Eiffel Tower in place given the astronomical number of pieces which had to fit together perfectly in order for it to appear as it does.In fact, is there ANYTHING which the designer did NOT create using this logic? My McDonalds Hamburger contains a number of pieces (sliced tomatos for example do not appear in nature. In fact, a sliced tomato could not survive), therefore doesn't it stand to reason that it was magically created? Forget the fact that I can talk to the 16year old who actually sliced the tomato. Forget that I can watch the process of a burger being assembled - the BEST answer is that it was magic, because that answer BEST fits your preconcieved notion that there is a designer.

This is interesting. Let me see if I can make sense of this.You seem to be saying that if you have 100 pieces of evidence.I suspect that you would also agree that as then number of pieces of evidence increases, the likelihood that it is correct also increases.Meanwhile, the opposite should also be true, as thenumber of pieces of evidence decreases, the likelihood that it is correct also decreases.Excellent. That is a foundation from which we can all proceed.Now, given that NONE of the evidence presented supports ID or Creationism. That leaves you in a bit of a pickle doesn't it?

So you believe that God individually designs EVERY snowflake as it freezes? Since, CLEARLY these show a geometric pattern and therefore a design.

I think you misunderstand the word "random".Here's what dictionary.com says: However, the ToE describes LIVING systems. There is a "definite aim" - survival.Natural selection is not "random selection".If this is beyond you capacity to understand, we can go into greater detail

Well, Jo, when you get back from crazy town, perhaps you can explain what any of your jitterbug vibration theory has to do with evolution - since none of it strikes me as being at all related to biology in general or evolution is specific.

Okay, you sound like the homeless guy down the street who complaining about the vibration-waves and particle mind beams.There's no sense debating any of this, since only you can possibly make heads or tails of your philosophy.By the way, the only thing you've demonstrated as random is your select of sentence fragments.If you want to accept made up stuff as "evidence", be prepared to accept that your theory is no more valid than my theory of the grand Pusher.Hardly "best" evidence, since it's not better than my made up crazy crap

You've once again confirmed my suspicion that you don't have a firm grasp of the words you are using.Best that you either stop debating, or educate yourself on the terms you are using.Your core concept, aside from being completely unsupported by facts, is in and of itself contradictory.I wonder if you are even able to convince youself

I will happily address evidence, when I see some. As of yet, you've presented no evidence.You have however put forward this idea: 54% of Americans believe in UFOS.However, belief in UFOs contradicts a belief in Biblical Creation. And while it's mathematically possible that these two groups do not over lap, I'm willing to bet there's a hefty group that believes in both.Pointing out that the average American is woefully under educated in critical thinking and science is not the same as offering evidence in support of your claim.

This only works if you can differentiate between that which is designed and that which is not designed.Appears to be designed in comparison to what?Give us a handful of examples of things you feel are designed and a handful of things which are not designed.Explain why what you feel is designed should be designated as such and why what you feel is not designed should be designated that way.You claim to see design all around you, surely you can come up with a list of 5-10 obviously designed things.

So in the beginning there was nothing. Then God made the universe and the Earth and mankind.And, then, I guess in the "missing" chapters, God went and created the aliens, made them smarter than us (even though we are the ones in his image) and now they're here to visit us.I mean, I can understand why these people are coming here. Since God made us special, surely they want to visit. Plus, it's a natural draw to visit the planet the entire universe revolves around.

I looked. The ONLY thing I see is "appearence of design".But you have yet to explain what "design" is.How can you say, "Well this thing appears to be designed" if you can't 1) describe design, 2) demonstrate a difference between design and non-design, 3) give us a list of some things which clearly were designed and some things which clearly weren't.This is no too much to ask.If I said the "appearence of UFOs" is the best evidence for UFOs, it would be WELL within the bounds of reason for someone to ask me what constitutes a UFO. Guess what? Not everything in the air is a UFO. Otherwise, hummingbirds are good evidence for UFOs.Definte your criteria!

I have solved the problem!CFO is doesn't understand that quantitative nature of the word "Best""The Bible is the "best" evidence for Creationism" does not mean "The Bible is "good" evidence for Creationism"Here's an example - see if you can follow.One job offers $0.15 / hr
One job offers $0.75 / hr
On job offers $1.25 / hrThe job that offers $1.25 is the "best" paying job. But none of them are good paying jobs.Your opinion that Creationism is correct is the "best" evidence for creationism, only because there's nothing else out there.