Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Thank you for trying to prevent a "Gish Gallop". Hope it works.PS
Please read post #1 first. Even though the name assigned to it is "IamJoseph", the message posted there is by Doddy. Therefore, I am responding to Doddy, not to IamJoseph.Edited by dwise1, : Added PS

I agree completely that we must insist that only POSITIVE evidence for creation be presented. I started studying "creation science" around 1981 and started discussing it on-line (CompuServe) around 1986 and remained active in that discussion on other forums as well until radical changes in my life 5 years ago. During all that time, I have repeatedly requested that creationists present POSITIVE evidence for creation. In all that time, I have NEVER, EVER, received any POSITIVE evidence for creation. Never. Not even from the late Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR, the man who should have definitely known of any such evidence.So I am definitely looking forward to seeing some POSITIVE evidence presented now in this thread.Why do we only see claims of negative evidence against evolution? I'll skip the obvious quip that there is no positive evidence for creation, since I do seriously want to see any actual positive evidence:1. The reason why they came up with creationism in the first place was to replace the "monkey laws" that had kept evolution out of the public schools until they were struck down in 1968.2. "Creation science"'s entire approach was based on their "Two Model Approach" (TMA) which is a false dichotomy. The TMA states that there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins: the creation model and the evolution model. Since they've thus set up an either-or situation in which eliminating one model automatically proves the other, they use this to justify "proving creation" solely by attacking the "evolution model".Hence, since the original purpose of creationism is to attack evolution and the TMA teaches that attacking evolution proves creation, we find creationists only producing "negative evidences" against evolution and never producing any positive evidence for creation. One consequence of this is that, while it is possible that positive evidence for creation could exist, we've never seen it because the creationists have been concentrating on seeking nothing but more ways to attack evolution and science.In just about every single presentation I've seen or heard by Dr. Duane Gish or the late Dr. Henry Morris, both of the ICR and both the superstars of creationism, the very first thing that they would do would be to set up the TMA. While researching a moondust claim I heard Morris make, I wrote to Morris and included a request for any POSITIVE evidence for creation instead of just negative claims against evolution and how would proving evolution wrong possibly prove his version of creation to be right and not some other culture's version. Dr. Morris insisted that negative evidence against evolution was indeed positive evidence for creation. He also restated the TMA and added that the evolution model includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern". In short, their "creation model" is nothing but their particular literalist theology and their "evolution model" is everything else.So I am so looking forward to finally seeing someone present positive evidence for creation.

"eather" [sic]? Aether? What are you talking about? The luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether" -- Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia) is a 19th century concept that could never be supported experimentally and was superceded in the early 20th century by Einsteinian physics.Laddie, you're stuck in the 19th century. Time you join us in the 21st century.PS
That Wikipedia article mentions modern geocentrists who base their beliefs on fundamentalist Christianity. You aren't one of those, are you? In that case then, you'd be stuck in a far earlier century than the 19th.PPS
From "Modern geocentrism" (Geocentric model - Wikipedia) (my emphasis):

quote:

---

Most geocentrists are more extreme and reject essentially all of modern astronomy and cosmology. A belief commonly associated with this view is that the stars are much closer than they are measured to be and are embedded in a rigid substrate. This substrate is referred to as aether (not to be confused with the classical concept of luminiferous aether). This aether is believed to revolve around the Earth in one sidereal day, but this revolution varies on a yearly cycle (in order to explain observations like aberration of light). An analogy is drawn to the gyroscope, which also exhibits a much slower precession on top of its primary rotation. This viewpoint does not adequately explain frame-dependent forces such as the Coriolis force since it also rejects most of physics including the theory of general relativity.

---

Is this what you meant by your reference to "eather" [sic]?Edited by dwise1, : PSEdited by dwise1, : PPS

The leading creationists have been telling us for decades that they have a wealth of evidence for creation. In the mid-80's, a creationist co-worker and I went to see a debate by Gish & H. Morris vs Thwaites and Awbrey. My co-worker was devastated by it. As we were walking out, he kept muttering, "Why didn't they present it? They have all this evidence for creation. Why didn't they present it?"This thread is a golden opportunity for creationists to present their evidence, so why don't they? The only conclusion we can draw from their failure to even give it a good try is that even they realize that they don't have any evidence.

Refute what? If any real, physical evidence has been presented, then please point me to it. Admittedly, I haven't been glued to this thread, but in reading through it I have only seen creationists offering "appearance of design" claims. So what is the evidence for "creation theory"?

So the question still stands: what evidence?That is not a rhetorical question. It is a question that demands an answer. What evidence? And it's a question that's not been answered in decades, at least not that I've ever seen.You say it's "an observation". What observations? You say "Creationism says that reality and scientific data is best explained to be the work of invisible Divine power." Precisely how? And specifically which scientific data are you talking about and precisely how has it been determined that that data "is best explained to be the work of invisible Divine power."?Nor is it up to any popularity vote. It's been a while since I've read any of the polls testing the American public's understanding of very basic science, but as I recall a rather large percentage holds many wildly wrong ideas about science and about nature. How then could you invoke them as experts for deciding scientific questions? You say that they see reality as you do and yet we find that they are so very wrong about most of reality, so what does that say about your ability to see reality?Also, you are wrong in your statement about evolution. Evolution is a theory (which is to say a comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena based on observation and constructed through an iterative method of hypothesis-building and testing and which has been tested extensively) which describes how certain aspects of nature work. It says absolutely nothing about the supernatural, though, like every other scientific theory, it shows how nature can operate on its own such that concocting a supernatural explanation (eg, Zeus throwing lightning bolts) is not necessary. It does not preclude a Divine power being ultimately behind nature. Regardless of the ultimate origin of nature, nature does work and science studies how nature works. Not a difficult concept, really.And I do agree with you that creationism is not a theory, since it is not based on observation and hence not on the evidence, nor was it constructed through hypothesis building and testing. However, the topic title does say "creation theory", so you'll have to take that up with the OP.So the question still stands: what evidence?

That's not evidence. We're talking physical evidence, natural evidence, scientific evidence that supports creation. That's what creationists have been boasting for decades that they have coming out of their ears. And that's what they have been avoiding presenting for all those same decades.So you're implicitly admitting that you have no evidence. Duly noted.