Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Right, except his name is Roger Penrose (as bluegenes was so kind to point out) and he is neither a biologist nor the author of Multiverse (although he apparently did contribute to it). Again, I'm not trying to pick on you, but some people take these things seriously and it's also nice to be able to actually check sources, so if you get the name and occupation wrong and don't quote accurately it tends to make people think you are just making shit up.BTW, do you have a link to one of these interviews? Or at least the name of the publication or group that interviewed him?ABE: oops...I see that you linked them downthread. Thank you!Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

Your not picking on me, but you are looking for commas and items not related to the fulcrum points debated. I have a copy of Penfolds interviews and will post it. The link I gave you does show he is more than a math or biology professor ('he is, after all, considered by some to be the leading mathematician in the pursuit of the Theory of Everything'),:Roger Penrose, who had
been pleaded with not to question the phrase 'dark energy' until we'd at
least broken it in and who had been asked by me that something called 'the
cosmological constant' was best left until half past nine, brought
everything up at once, brilliantly (he is, after all, considered by some to
be the leading mathematician in the pursuit of the Theory of Everything),
and for a few moments, as I listened agape, I realised that in one way I
could wrap up the programme at then about thirteen minutes past nine and
call it a day. However, I managed to plough on. Superficially you can get
some sort of handle on it, even if you are as big a non-physicist as
myself. The forces at work - expanding universe, kinetic energy, dark
matter, dark energy, gravity - can at some level be blotted up in the
swotting.

This thread is focussed on creationism so I, for one, am not paying much attention to the science in it.However, this is to warn you that if you step into other science thread with this kind of nonsense you will be suspended immediately.I have not noticed that you have supported any of your assertions. (The wonders of Biblical accuracy for example). Make any of those in any science threads and not supply support when you make them and you'll also be suspended.You need to understand that you know very little about anything discussed here. Certainly nothing about any of the sciences and, it seems, not much about the bible. You have a chance to learn. You are not taking that opportunity.Meanwhile you are cluttering up threads with silly stuff. Stop!

Right, but I (and I am not alone on this) have a hard time discerning your "fulcrum" points because you are using words incorrectly (random), incompletely (grads) and superfluously (fulcrum) and that makes for a difficult read, so if you want to get your points across more readily, then please take my advice (I see you have started using "randomness" so thank you) Penrose That would be wonderful thank you. As it happens, I listened to the BBC discussion and Penrose doesn't say what you think he says (for those who are interested the relevant remarks begin at 31:11, but the whole thing is quite interesting and the discussion leading up to his remarks are quite relevant to what he says).He invokes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain why he thinks the proposition that the universe was more random at the beginning than it is now in order to explain parts of the theory of inflation is bunk. Now I don't pretend to understand exactly what he is talking about because I am not involved in those fields and I don't know if he is right or wrong, but that is neither here nor there. What I do know is that he doesn't exclaim "A COMPLEXITY CANNOT COME FROM A RANDOM!!" and I also know that what he says with regards to the cosmological constant, 2LoT and inflation have absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.Nada.It simply doesn't apply because, first of all, he is discussing cosmology and, secondly, the 2LoT has nothing to do with evolution because the Earth is not a closed system.His views do nothing to support your arguments. Yes, that is all right and good, but he is not a biology professor, nor did he write Multiverse, nor did I or anyone else here proclaim he was nothing more than a math or biology professor. We didn't even know who he was at first because you didn't get his name or anything about him right!That is no longer the point, though. The point is that his statements do not support your ideas.Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"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

quote:

---

This thread is focussed on creationism so I, for one, am not paying much attention to the science in it.
However, this is to warn you that if you step into other science thread with this kind of nonsense you will be suspended immediately.

​

I have not noticed that you have supported any of your assertions. (The wonders of Biblical accuracy for example). Make any of those in any science threads and not supply support when you make them and you'll also be suspended.

​

You need to understand that you know very little about anything discussed here. Certainly nothing about any of the sciences and, it seems, not much about the bible. You have a chance to learn. You are not taking that opportunity.

​

Meanwhile you are cluttering up threads with silly stuff. Stop!

---

I learnt one thing from you. Go play with yourself. GOOD BYE!

Einstein publically denied a belief in a personal God in the last year of life or so...falsifying this comment comepletely. "I do not believe in a personal God" - Einstein 1954 I think you might be referring to the Higgs field?Are you suggesting the best evidence of creation is found in a lie about Einstein an appeal to a 17th Century alchemist who did his utmost to wangle out of going to Christian services, and a misunderstanding of quantum theory?Sounds about right I guess. So much for creation.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You previously affirmed that the principle of cause and effect underpins your ENTIRE creationist world view.Yet when this was challenged on the basis of quantum theory and it's inherently probibalistic nature you just stopped replying.Linear cause and effect of the common sense type you are basing your whole argument on is little more than the result of limited human perception and is not an inherent principle of nature in the way that you need it to be to support your misguided viewsUntil you have the honesty to support your ultimate assertion you should have the decency to stop repeatedly reciting your brand of ignorance. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Einstein publically denied a belief in a personal God in the last year of life or so...falsifying this comment comepletely. "I do not believe in a personal God" - Einstein 1954

---

The OT forbids a personal Gd.

quote:

---

You previously affirmed that the principle of cause and effect underpins your ENTIRE creationist world view.

​

Yet when this was challenged on the basis of quantum theory and it's inherently probibalistic nature you just stopped replying.

​

Linear cause and effect of the common sense type you are basing your whole argument on is little more than the result of limited human perception and is not an inherent principle of nature in the way that you need it to be to support your misguided views

---

The point I was making about QM is that there was no ramdomness here, that the probabilities were a definitive, predictable pattern, and thus we have electronics and chips - utilised by those predictables. My point about cause and effect is that the cause is lacking in non-creationism.

Our forum here has rules, Joseph. Rule #10 says, in part: "Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior.""Go play with yourself" isn't showing respect. You will be suspended if you continue to violate the rules.

I am afraid to tell you that there is inherent randomness in QM. It is one of the founding principles. Read any book on the subject and you will realise this. Yopu will also realise that this randomness has profound implications for causality as you require it. Again you are confusing the random component of inherent probability and completely random behaviour.Again I ask you to consider the half life of a radioactive substance.We can predict that half of the atoms will decay in time X
This is indeed a predictable pattern
This predicatble pattern is based on probability
We cannot predict which individual atoms will decay
At the level of the individual atom there is no pattern
At the level of the individual atom it is random
The founding premise of your entire philosophy is blown awayIf you really think there is nothing random in nature then how would you answer the following physical problem with your 'causal creationist' philosophy intact?You have one atom of substance X that has a half life of 10,000 yearsWhen will this atom decay?
What 'causes' it to decay at the time it actually does rather than any other?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I know I'm just a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, but could someone, anyone, please post something on-topic?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I thought earlier in the thread you had formally given up on the topic as originally defined and thrown it open to wider debate?I believe the term 'missed opportunity' was used.Correct me if I am wrong as it is not my intention to derail anyones threads.

Well, sort of. What I was trying to say was that I didn't think this thread so important as to be worth pressuring participants back on topic, but that it does represent a significant opportunity for creationists to enumerate their most convincing evidence.I still feel the same way, that it's a significant missed opportunity, and if I could add a bit more, it also leaves the impression that creationists are not talking about positive evidence because they don't really have any.I have no problem if people want to continue the current discussion, but I'll probably pop in with another reminder or two about topic before the thread ends.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

This predicatble pattern is based on probability
We cannot predict which individual atoms will decay

---

The former makes it non-random. QM is utilised on a guarantee of its probability predictables. Today, many gamble the share market and horce races on this factor: they know that in 10 races, one favourite will come up (this factor is better guaranteed in QM).Creationism depends on the non-random, and no singularity, premises. None of these have ever been identified anyplace in the universe.