Most convincing evidence for creation theory

'RANDOM'.Ask where quarks come from, and how new particles ('virtual' particles) are made, inturn responsible for all products in the universe. Here we are told there are 'vibrations' in the eather which excite the quarks, and by an anomoly of energy value discrepencies - new particles which never existed before, emerge.I ask: is there a missing factor in this scenario - one never addressed? Like where did the vibrations come from - and where did the exact reciprocation and receptability come from? Do vibrations cause cars to emerge? And how do new particles become equipped to perform new tasks and create new products which are all complex and intergrated? Such issues are not addressed, and evidence only a random premise as the cause of all complexities: it is not limited to life only, but goes far beyond into the smallest known nano-particles.If jitterbugging particles at the foundation of every complexity does not spell random, then nothing does. Why not experiment by taking quarks to the moon and see what happens: we cannot posit here that the conditions are different, because in the spacetime of quarks, there are no conditions either - 'vibrations' are sited as the instigator. Perhaps we can learn something about these mysterious vibrations - or discard them from the final explanations embedded in random justification? Perhaps this experiment was not conducted on the moon because its answer was realised but put in denial too?

Well, Jo, when you get back from crazy town, perhaps you can explain what any of your jitterbug vibration theory has to do with evolution - since none of it strikes me as being at all related to biology in general or evolution is specific.

Just curious, why do you keep using random as a noun?Your manner of communicating is already confusing enough and it would help alot if you either substituted "randomness" or added the noun which "random" is qualifying. Thanks.Edited by Jaderis, : forgot siggy

---

"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:

---

Well, Jo, when you get back from crazy town, perhaps you can explain what any of your jitterbug vibration theory has to do with evolution - since none of it strikes me as being at all related to biology in general or evolution is specific.

---

Because these premises are from the same crazy town. I stated in my post, the premise of random goes far beyond life and evolution, encroaching the very building blocks of the universe. If random begets new particles, which are touted the smallest indivisable particles common to all matter in the universe - it is a reflection of evolution's doctrine: you cannot have the latter without the former, thus it is likewise resorted to. It also means you cannot reject one of these premises only.

quote:

---

Just curious, why do you keep using random as a noun?

---

The prefix 'theory of' is inferred in random being used as an abstract noun, without confusion, because it has no other alternative meaning in the relevent context. Evolution, as opposed theory of evolution, is an example.

Hmmm...I just googled "theory of random" and I got hits on theory of random determinants, Kinetic theory of random graphs, theory of random DNA changes, a rational theory of random crackdowns, and theory of random sets on the first page, theory of random processes, spectral theory of random matrices, and theory of random vibrations on the second page and on subsequent pages, "random" is always followed by a noun. I didn't find any "theory of random" references. Could you help me out?P.S. an abstract noun is still a noun. Randomness could be considered an abstract noun, but random is always an adjective.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

This doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that there exists a "Theory Of Random"?The correct noun is "randomness". The word "random" is an adjective. For the sake of clarity you would better serve your own ends by using the word in the usual manner.

Okay, you sound like the homeless guy down the street who complaining about the vibration-waves and particle mind beams.There's no sense debating any of this, since only you can possibly make heads or tails of your philosophy.By the way, the only thing you've demonstrated as random is your select of sentence fragments.If you want to accept made up stuff as "evidence", be prepared to accept that your theory is no more valid than my theory of the grand Pusher.Hardly "best" evidence, since it's not better than my made up crazy crap

Fair point. The designer we seem to be mainly focussing on in this discussion however is the Christian God. As I understand it that designer is meant to be both omnipotent and benevolent.In the that context I believe that my original point stands but wholly accept that in a broader context what you say is absolutely true.

It's obvious that you're not a native English speaker, Joseph, so we can bear with you a little for mistakes like using the adjective "random" when you require the noun "randomness", as others have pointed out, although such things can make reading difficult.However, here you've made a more serious mistake, and completely changed a meaning.Dr. A. is talking about the "appearance of design". In your reply, you change this to "design". Of course a design, in the literal sense of the word, requires a designer, and no-one has suggested otherwise. But the "appearance of design" is not "design". So you've made a correct, but completely irrelevant, claim in your reply.I think this goes beyond faulty English.

Interesting postI disagree fundamentally with much of what you say (in ways that are totally off topic) but your post was interesting reading. 'Proof' of anything is not the issue in this thread.
Negative evidence is also ideally off limits
The most convincing evidence is what is required.
Preferably physical evidence of creation or creationist argumentsIn summary you seem to be saying that the best physical evidence for creation is the fact that matter exists because 'random' (your word)or uncaused (my interpretation) effects are impossible (so you assume) and therefore cannot account for the origin of matter.Is that essentially correct?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

IamJoseph Signals cannot transfer through space at greater than the velocity of light. Signals may indeed be in space right now but the problem is two fold. One you have to know which frequency to monitor and 2 you must be monitoring the right patch of sky when the signal comes along.

To Creationists,This thread is your opportunity to enumerate the positive evidence for creation. This thread is nearly half done, and very little time has been spent on the thread's topic. I don't see this thread as so important that participants should be pressured back on topic, so if people would rather use the thread's topic as a point of departure for discussing something else then go right ahead, but it does seem to me a significant missed opportunity.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

The most convincing evidence is what is required.
Preferably physical evidence of creation or creationist arguments

---

Evidence is bountiful; proof is not/cannot be asked, else this discussion would'nt happen. Physical evidence is also out of the question - we cannot arrive at matter's origins, which would locate us outside the physical universe - and this is what is required for physical proof. This applies to for or against creationism. Here, only the sound premise applies, and all that can be expected here too, is that nothing else save a designer behind a design applies - by virtue of exhausting all reasonable alternatives. We cannot capture the designer and present it in a lab vase.

quote:

---

In summary you seem to be saying that the best physical evidence for creation is the fact that matter exists because 'random' (your word)or uncaused (my interpretation) effects are impossible (so you assume) and therefore cannot account for the origin of matter.

​

Is that essentially correct?

---

Correct, it is one of the pivotal factors against the premise of a random foundation of a manifest complexity, but one which has no escape from after concuring with darwin's theories concerning speciation. The latter is implicated here by its obvious flow-on connection, rendering the often said, 'darwin does not venture into how life emerged' - as less than creible or intelligent. Nothing is going to change whether one accepts or rejects Creationism; science still will continue to expound the known universe mechanisms.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

But you aren't going to point any of it out, eh?