Discussing the evidence that support creationism

Of course, the topic of this thread is evidence that supports creationism. You have explained that you believe in creation. You have explained the reasons for your belief. You have provided ad hoc explanations for sundry facts about the history of the earth that are inconsistent with creationism. What you have yet to do is provide evidence.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You are of course free to base your beliefs on what ever evidence you choose to. I wouldn't presume to tell you otherwise.However, to the extent that you base your beliefs on one single source, a source that can be demonstrably shown to be in error in many instances, and a source that literally millions of people have different interpretations of, you have disqualified yourself from any science discussion.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Lots of creos have come here saying that. Very few of them have ever shown any real interest in trying to learn. However, I am willing to take you at your word for the moment, and will attempt to explain a few things to you.Science is the process of making observations of the natural world, developing hypotheses to explain what we see, making predictions based on those hypotheses and testing those predictions by comparing them to further observations. That is how science works, in a nutshell.You claim that we cannot know anything about the prehistoric past because nobody was there to observe it. Implicit in this claim is the idea that we can't know anything without direct observation. This idea is false, at least as far as science is concerned. Processes that occurred in the past left evidence behind. That evidence can be observed and hypotheses formed on the basis of those observations. Predictions can be made based on those hypotheses, and those predictions can be tested by further observations.You may agree or disagree with the validity of this process as it applies to prehistoric events, but science relies on it every day, and it allows science make predictions about future discoveries that are borne out.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

So, you put forth this list of PRATTs, which you refer to as "quite a bit of evidence," but then immediately disclaim any belief in the evidence by saying that you are not a YEC. I think the internal consistency meter has just blown itself out of existence.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Uh huh. I suppose you think by this reply you've undermined my point.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

In other words, the only thing you did was omit the first two entries from Mod's list and substitute an entry of your own with an explanation that has no evidential basis but is nothing more than your ad hoc rationalization, such rationalizations being the sine qua non of what passes for cdesign proponentist "analysis."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat