Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Dierotao proposed an identical thread. Since IamJoseph ran into a bug while attempting to edit this post, and in the interest of finally getting this thread promoted, I'm pasting Dierotao's proposal into IamJospeph's opening post:From Dierotao:

---

Having read through much of Doddy's "Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory" thread, I thought it would only be fair to see what the creationists on this forum consider their most convincing evidence for the origins of the universe/life/humans/etc.
Perhaps there is something you usually like to bring out to challenge an evolutionist? Or perhaps you are open to evolutionary theory, but there is this glaring problem you see that causes you to remain a creationist. Perhaps your even an evolutionist, but in your open mindedness, you would like to share a good argument you have heard from a creationist.I would like as much detail as possible in your answers. So rather than rattling off a quick list of things, I would prefer to see one example in detail. Perhaps you could even include the evolutionist belief on that matter, and then conclude with why you still believe the creationist argument (any links to more detailed sources would be helpful as well).I would also ask that we behave as gentlemen or ladies here. Doddy's thread contained a great deal of creationist bashing, I hope here we can present our ideas in a more mature manner.

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Test edit feature...Edited by Admin, : Change OP to describe agreed on topic.

Hi IamJoseph,Could you change the title so it isn't all upper case?Your stated premise is difficult to understand. Taking this one sentence at a time: Would it be an accurate paraphrase to say, "Discussions about any aspect of evolution should include both positive and negative evidence." If this captures your meaning, then I think everyone here already agrees with this. Certainly one of the important roles of moderators is to keep discussion focused on evidence and argument pertinent to the topic.Your next sentence: I think everyone would agree with this, not only "as per Darwin", but also as per the modern synthesis.Your last sentence: Is what you really meant to say is that the validity of evolution cannot be fairly assessed unless the negative evidence is also included? If so, I don't think anyone would argue with this, either.So you haven't really stated a position that anyone could argue with, and of course there's also no specific starting point for discussion.Going by what you said in the "Most Convincing Evidence for Evolution" thread, I think what you really want is a title something like this: And that what you really want for your opening post is to start something like this: You could elaborate from there.If you agree with the feedback, then please edit the OP and then post a response to this message so that I know the edit has been completed. If you don't agree then just reply to this message.Also, both Google and Firefox provide spellcheckers.--Percy

I suppose 'Evolution's Failures' is comprehensive enough, and includes the main factor I wanted to be debated, namely a reponse to the thread which accepts only those factors which are posiitive to Evolution - and thereby deems any negative factors out of context.Here I wanted evolutionists to debate two things, namely what is 'right' about Creationism, and what is 'wrong' about evolution. I find many evolutionist arguements lacking when they cannot identify what is 'right' about Creationism, and wrong' about evolution, in the mode it is presently accepted.Edited by IamJoseph, : spelling

This is very broad. We've found that discussion works better if threads have a clear focus. Here's rule 3:

3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

The way you've described it, moon dust depth, fossils on mountain tops, the shrinking sun, the appearance of design, the lack of transitionals, blood coagulation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the impossibility of creating new information and so forth and so on, would all be on-topic in this thread.In the other thread it seemed clear to me that you were interested in discussing the features of life that evolution can't explain. If I'm wrong about that then just make clear what it is you do want to discuss, but it can't be all anti-evolution arguments combined with all pro-creationism arguments. That's far too broad.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yes, it should be focused to a definitive issue. My suggestion is not just evolution - this is only one aspect of life and the universe, and not an answer to everything. My focus is what is 'right' in Creationism - which is emperitive, required knowledge in determining what is wrong. How about, WHAT'S POSITIVE ABOUT CREATIONISM?

In that case what I think you really want is a thread complementary to the Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory thread, and the title would therefore be, "Most convincing evidence for creation science". If this is agreeable to you then change the title and the opening post accordingly and I'll promote it.

Yes, this should do it. Thanks a lot.

The title and opening post are unchanged. If you just ran out of time then no problem, do it whenever you have time, but in case there's a misunderstanding let me clarify that you need to change the title and the opening post before I can promote this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

"you need to change the title and the opening post before I can promote this thread."I'm not sure what you want me to do - where is this thread I should change?

The thread Admin means is this one you are typing in. You need to go to your first post and click the 'Edit' button at the bottom of that first post. You will then be able to change the thread title and redraft your opening post along the lines you and Admin have discussed.TTFN,AW

There was a bug preventing you from editing the opening post in Message 1. The bug is now fixed. Once you've revised the opening post I'll promote the thread.

Looks like there was a bug. I thanked AW but it did'nt appear.

You did edit Message 1, because there's now an edit note appended to the end, but you didn't change the text. I just tested the edit function myself and it appears to work. Once you edit the text in Message 1 to describe the topic, I'll promote it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Whilst pointing out problems with the established scientific theories is perfectly valid this alone should not be considered as evidence in favour of creationism.Establishing the validity of a theory requires positive evidence for the theory in question.Evolution (for example) does not base it's whole validity on the argument that creationism can be demonstrated to be wrong. Instead it bases it's arguments on the "evolution can be shown to have taken place due to....." type arguments.The equivalent "Most convincing evidence for evolution" thread consisted almost entirely of such exampes of positive evidence for evolution.All too often the arguments for creationism seem to rest purely and simply on the 'evolution must be wrong because.....' format of negative "evidence"Even if evolution was somehow shown to be false creationism would not have been proved to be true.I look forard to seeing some positive evidence for creationism.In this thread do you want non creationists to debate the examples that are cited? If not I will read with interest but remain a spectator. Let us know.