Let's start with the textual evidence, the Bible.Ray

My point was that Creationism is a major view - that's all. This meant that anyone who turns their nose up to design = Designer needs to be reminded that it is not an obscure pet viewpoint held by some cult living in the desert.And logic is not a fallacy. OTOH, evolutionists routinely remind the world that the vast majority of working biologists are evolutionists, does your "Appeal to Popularity" apply when evos make this appeal? Design corresponding to invisible Designer means that any Deity could be the Designer. Once the identification is made, that is, once design is recognized to be real or actual then at the same time an invisible Designer comes with it. Biblical superiority or the identification of the Genesis Deity to be the Designer comes via Comparative Religion.The Bible is true because what it says corresponds to reality, whether historic, scientific, visible or personal reality. Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly? Once design is accepted as real then we say that the Biblical God is the Designer. This means Darwinism is false and special creation remains true. Do you understand what I am saying?Again, once design is validated as real then God is proven to exist. Special creation has always been true, RAZD. Common ancestry is falsified on so many lines of evidence it is ridiculous. Nested heirarchies do not even exist. When the data is examined, it does not support the claims. Innuendo.Ray

Oh details, great! What textual evidence do you have in the Bible that is the most convincing in support of creation theory?

The Bible is the source for Creation "theory."Ray

Joseph, I had my account deactivated for a spell, but when I read this I was angered to the point that I reactivated my account to impress upon you that this sort of conduct toward admins will not be tolerated by evo admins or by creo admins.1. You do not respond to moderation action in the thread where you were moderated. It's to be addressed in the moderation thread where moderators can help you with your problem.2. You are to show respect for all moderators, regardless of what you think. Moderators work voluntarily to see that the board is run efficiently and smoothly in a respectable manner.3. Since you told AdminNosy goodby, I'm giving you two days off so as to fulfill your commitment to him and to help you become a better member of the creationist team at EvC.DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREADEdited by AdminBuzsaw, : Update title

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

So you agree that it is a logical fallacy and is not evidence for biblical creationism. Good. Good (true) logic does not use fallacies, bad (false) logic does. Yes. And the appeal to authority as well. So? Are you really surprised that evolutionary biologists are evolutionary biologists? This does not make evolution wrong, just that this alone is not evidence for evolution. If it is true. Because the logical structure is faulty it doesn't have to be true: it is also possible that apparent design is just that ... it appears to be design in the eye of the beholder. One view looks through a kaleidoscope and sees design, the other view looks at the jumbled bits and the mirrors and sees random processes producing the appearance of design. Oh goody: now we are finally going to get real evidence ... Oops. YOU were supposed to provide the evidence Ray.But hey, just for fun: SN1987A is geometrically calculated to be 168,000 light-years away. The nova produced cobalt-56 which decayed according to the 77 day half-life we know from experiments here on earth. The frequency distribution of the light spectrum showed that it was cobalt-56 AND that the time intervals for those frequencies matched those on earth. This means that the speed of light can also be calculated from SN1987A for the time of the nova and it matches the speed of light we calculate now here on earth. This means that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Thus the universe is at least 168,000 years old ...Your turn. Tell me how the bible explains the distance to this nova, cobalt-56 formation, radioactive decay, stellar novas, frequency distributions of light for different elements AND the age of the universe. OOPS: big logical error! You can say it all you want to, but you are missing the key step in the logical structure:Premise 1: Design is Real
Premise 2: (missing)
Conclusion: Biblical God is the DesignerWhere is your link, your premise #2? Without it your conclusion is invalid.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I understand that you have been unable to refute the issue of your arguments all being logical fallacies. I understand that you have now introduced another logical fallacy, the False Dilemma

quote:

---

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

---

A third option is that creation is true (your design=designer argument) AND that all life evolved on earth in accordance with the science of evolution because that was the way the universe was created. You have still not eliminated that possibility.I understand that you have no evidence or logic to substantiate your assertions that involve biblical creation.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Denial of evidence does not make it so. Nature is surprisingly not influenced by your personal opinion. You need to demonstrate that this is anything but personal opinion, and you do that by providing evidence.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Failure to refute and all that eh Ray? Absolute failure to refute. Logic is really fairly simple to use, Ray ... if you follow the rules.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Source for one of many creation myths.Nevertheless the topic is "Evidence" not claims - you are confusing claims with 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.

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.

No complexity can emerge from randomness, so all complexity must be designed, by a designer. Correct?Surely the designer must be highly complex. Which means the designer must have been designed by an even more complex designer. I'm sure you see where this is going. In this scenario you can always keep asking "Who designed the designer?".How do you get around this? I'm sure you'll say something along the lines of "the designer was not designed, he has always existed" but that is based on nothing but the Bible, and nowhere have you made the connection between the designer and God.

Well the first step (at least for scientists) would be to take this observation of apparent design and test it to see if it is actual design. Then, if evidence is found that the object(s) could have been "built" through processes based on natural laws, we then begin to look for the exact mechanisms and once these mechanisms are found, we can then say that apparent design does not equal design in this instance. See, Ray, "interpreting" evidence is different from actually testing the evidence. If you define "special pleading" as asking questions and testing evidence, then, yes, we do. Bolding mine.Yes, it is prima facie evidence.From Wikipedia

quote:

---

Prima facie is a Latin expression (which originates from Middle English) meaning "on its first appearance", or "by first instance", and is used in modern legal English to signify a matter that appears on first examination to be self evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that is sufficient (if not rebutted) to prove a particular proposition or fact. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, at which point proceedings can commence in order to test it, and create a ruling.

---

Meaning that it looks good at first glance, but it needs to be able to stand up to contradictory evidence.I doubt that these 3 evolutionists rule in favor of your evidence in light of the evidence for evolution. All they were really saying is that it looks good on its face and (I don't mean to put words into people's mouths, but this is how I took it) that it's kinda pathetic if this is all you have, especially if you can't back it up.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

IndeedAs one of the three (Crashfrog was one other not sure who the last was) who agreed that apparent design is the best evidence for creationism of some sort I would like to point out that just because it is the BEST evidence does not necessarily mean it is GOOD evidence.It is the best evidence because the other evidences that were cited are even worse.
Also to be fair I can sympathise with how easy it is to mistake apparent design for actual design if taken at face value with no further investigation into the underlying mechanisms.It is true that many natural things do 'seem' to be designed. Absolutely.In other words the best creationists can say is "It looks like it was designed" and that, frankly, is worth bugger all.

Welcome to the fray Shtop.Just some quick "get acquainted" notes:There are TWO reply buttons, on is for general replies (what you used) the other is for specific replies to particular posts -- it is at the lower right corner of the post. This second reply button creates a link to the post you are replying to, and you can set up to get emails for replies to your posts that use this button. Useful.type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: You can also use the {PEEK} button to see how posts are formated, or {Peek Mode} when in reply window (upper right of post being replied to) Precisely. The evidence of design is shaky at best and the lack of linkage to biblical creation has yet to be presented.Enjoy.

Exactly, it is almost like creationists don't really understand what "evidence" is. Interpretations of things (especially when based on faulty logic) is not evidence.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.