Most convincing evidence for creation theory

(1) Er, "logically"?(2) You do know what conclusion all those "persons with Ph.D.s", our "brightest scientists" came to, yes?Hint: it starts with evo- and ends with -lution.

Once it has been validated. Of course, you don't produce this "data", or these "many lines of evidence" 'cos you made this up.

It's this habit we have called "telling the truth".And I think you mean "wherefore".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We already know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes the Bible to not be evidence, what is your point?Ray

In other words, you refuse to scroll back and address the posts where the evidence is listed, or you have and decided that you cannot refute which explains the "what evidence?" card that you are playing.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

It is not about atheism it is about standards of evidence.You need to explain why the bible is any more credible than any other written human account and why it should compare with physical evidence in terms of reliability and objectivity.

UFO phenomena presents no conflict with Biblical creation. At least 40 percent of American Christians accept human evolution which does contradict Biblical creation.Ray

It is not a matter of opinion: ToE says God does not exist in reality. This is the most undisputed claim of your theory. If Darwinists would brazenly lie about this fundamental claim then just think what they do with complicated scientific evidence?Ray

Do you have good evidence that 5000 years ago people could live to almost a thousand years of age?Brian.

Now you have baited and switched from denying the Bible to be evidence to an unstated standard of evidence that undoubtedly excludes the Bible as evidence - correct? If true, again: we know Atheists deny the Bible to be evidence, please tell us your point? "Question" presupposes the Bible to not be credible, and it presupposes physical evidence superior, and it presupposes the Bible to not be reliable and objective.Again, we already know Atheists believe the Bible to not be credible, unreliable, non-objective and inferior to physical evidence, what is your point?Ray

Yes, are you familiar with the book of Genesis?The various books of the Bible were written to record facts and knowledge that would otherwise be lost to mankind due to time, weather and adverse conditions. Much like the long list of 155 Palestinian cities engraved at Karnak by Sosenk that have never been identified.Ray

I am familiar with it yes. Do you have any evidence to support the claim in the Book of Genesis that people could live to nearly one thousand years of age?To save the dance, what external evidence do you have that the Book of Genesis is correct here.That there's 155 unidentified Palestinian cities engraved on my ass has nothing to do with what I asked. Brian.

And since 29% of all Americans, according to polling data, think that the sun revolves around the earth..........??

This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE. This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist?Creationists already know that Atheists deny Creationism to have any evidence which leaves us wondering as to what is RAZD's point?Ray

There is external evidence that corroborates but I am not "fluent" in presenting it. We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long. But my point in the other post was that, like Karnak, the recording of information is so that it is not lost. We know that at least 17 out of 155 cities have been identified. Nobody would doubt the existence of the others, why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula?Ray