Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Your comment's intended for the O.P. guys, of course, but I just wanted to suggest that we don't debate the points presented actually on this thread, but start new threads on them if we want to. Otherwise, it will quickly go off topic, and turn into a headache for moderators.I eagerly await the first piece of "convincing evidence".

That's one of the reasons that some of us attack religious faith directly.However, as you're playing Devil's advocate, the O.P. says convincing evidence. There's no evidence, convincing or otherwise, for the existence of an entity who created parasites to plague us because of something our ancestors did. The creationist side on this thread has yet to present a scrap of evidence for the creation or the creator.

"Nothing did it" is not a claim of evolutionary theory, and never has been. On two levels.1)Evolutionary Theory does not have anything to say about whether or not a God or Gods created the universe, or how the universe came into being.2)Mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are not nothing.

Considering the title of the topic, and your view that creationists have ample evidence to support their position, would you like to tell us what that ample evidence is? Or at least, some of it?

Non-creationists. Not necessarily evolutionists, it could be those who have not made their minds up. On this thread's opposite number, the convincing evidence for evolution one, there was no lack of ideas. Meaning you have no evidence, just blind faith. Scientific method is a tool, not a faith, and isn't presented as evidence of anything.

Yes, you are guessing. No, I don't.I said this:

quote:

---

Considering the title of the topic, and your view that creationists have ample evidence to support their position, would you like to tell us what that ample evidence is? Or at least, some of it?

---

I was making a very reasonable request. This thread is for creationists to present what they think is the most convincing evidence for creationism. You weren't doing that, and now, following my request, you have. Well done.You could've done it on your first post, without all the preliminary philosophizing, couldn't you?Edited by bluegenes, : punctuation!

While that's obviously a good idea in general, it wouldn't really fit the O.P. title, would it? Several of us (myself included) have been guilty of arguing against creationism on the thread, which we shouldn't really be doing.It's a bit much to expect a creationist to break the O.P. rules in order to present evidence against creationism. If they did follow your advice not to cherry-pick, the thread would be blank, and there wouldn't be such a thing as "Creation Science" anyway. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Thanks for mentioning my favourite volcano. I was on Anak Krakatoa for half a day sixteen years ago. Fascinating place. It was about 60 years old then, with a patch of young rain forest on one side, already teeming with small creatures, and a beach of black cinders with crabs all over it. Great day, but off topic.Actually, maybe it's not so off-topic. Can I count it as convincing eyewitness evidence that creation is still going on?Doesn't really fit the classic six day version though.

"Should be able to" does not mean "should want to". Straggler's statement is correct.You say "no" and then follow this with another correct statement about an omnipotent designer, and then an incorrect one about an omnibenevolent designer (who should want to design an ecosystem without suffering and brutality, but is not necessarily able to).Minor difference there

It's obvious that you're not a native English speaker, Joseph, so we can bear with you a little for mistakes like using the adjective "random" when you require the noun "randomness", as others have pointed out, although such things can make reading difficult.However, here you've made a more serious mistake, and completely changed a meaning.Dr. A. is talking about the "appearance of design". In your reply, you change this to "design". Of course a design, in the literal sense of the word, requires a designer, and no-one has suggested otherwise. But the "appearance of design" is not "design". So you've made a correct, but completely irrelevant, claim in your reply.I think this goes beyond faulty English.

Which creation theory are we presenting evidence for?From Wiki:

quote:

---

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to rejection of evolution. The wide spectrum of such beliefs includes young Earth creationism holding a very literal interpretation of Genesis, while old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are compatible with scientific findings on evolution and the age of the Earth.

---

This post from IamJoseph highlights a problem in the O.P. title. Here, Joseph is really presenting his argument for theism; a theism with a creator God who is behind everything and whose existence cannot be proved or disproved.This is the kind of God who is normally outside the realms of science, and is not really part of a scientific evidence based debate, but a philosophical one. He brings it just into the realms of science by implying that he's observed a design somewhere, (...nothing else save a designer behind a design applies...) but in this case, he doesn't present his evidence for it, a claim that "evidence is bountiful" being entirely unsupported.How many creation "theories" are we supposed to argue against? And isn't the fact that there are so many evidence itself indicating that they're all made up, pretty much according to whim, and irrespective of evidence, just like the many creation mythologies of ancient cultures.They're about Faith, not evidence, hence the paucity of the efforts on this thread so far.

IamJoseph probably means Roger Penrose, but isn't familiar enough with Penrose's work to remember his name.Roger Penrose - Wikipedia

Ah, so you're a creationist of sorts. What's your most convincing evidence for creation, then? Is there evidence of the Deity that we can observe via the study of his creation?Enjoy