Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for creation theory
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 307 (411833)
07-22-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2007 6:30 PM


By Jove, he's right!
Half-right, anyway.
Besides engaging in the usual blatant misrepresentations that evolutionists routinely do, you have, in this case forgotten that this topic is about the best positive evidence for Creationism: again, the answer is the appearance of design seen in nature and in its inhabitants.
Within that context; indeed, the appearance of design in nature is half of the best evidence for creationism. The other half is that the Bible makes it clear that God created directly, in a short period of time.
Those two things - the appearance of design and the Bible's support for creationism - are, indeed, the two best pieces of evidence for creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2007 6:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2007 6:39 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 07-23-2007 4:16 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 88 of 307 (411961)
07-23-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
07-23-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Positive Evidence
Simply asserting this doesn't make it true. An assertion is not evidence.
Well, no, look. Ray's right about this. You gotta give it to him.
If there were only two pieces of evidence in the entire world - the Bible and the appearance of design in the natural world - creationism would be the most logical explanation. The appearance of design does suggest design. I mean, that's how we know the difference between a river rock and a flint arrowhead.
In the context of this thread - the best evidence for creationism - it's true that the best evidence is the appearance of design in the natural world and the testimony of the Bible. Those are the two best things they have.
Outside of the context of this thread, the Bible's testimony is rendered unreliable by independent evidence; and the conjecture of a designer to explain the appearance of design is enormously contradicted by a vast weight of evidence on our side. So it's not to say that creationism is true, because it's obviously not; neither of their two best pieces of evidence actually amounts to anything. The appearance of design in nature is better explained by a natural process that results in the appearance of design - a process we have abundant, independent evidence for.
But none of that is relevant to the question right now - the best evidence for creationism. It's the appearance of design in nature and what the Bible says. Their best evidence isn't very good, it pretty much sucks compared to the mountain of evidence for evolution, but it is the best that they have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2007 11:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2007 3:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024