Most convincing evidence for creation theory

quote:

---

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.

---

Who's the 'you' - surely the 'they' (vastly more advanced) beings applies? Signals don't have to be the velocity of light - even a fraction of this will do; galaxies are not so far apart that minus light velocity would be inadequate. Resorting to impossible conditions is unacceptable, and a runaway from confronting a failure.We know that stars die and are born pervasively and continuesly; some would be older than this galaxy but relatively not that far; thus if any life exists here, they would be surely more advansed pursuent to the time factor.The real reason we have not recieved a signal is that the math says - no life exists out there. This may be a different subject from this thread (?), but science rests on probilities, not possibilities. We have an actual 'survey poll' which says no life exists in the enormous 'known' universe, which embodies all the conditions and varieties one can imagine. And a poll provides better credibility for the unknown universe, than no poll. Consider the impact of no life out there: it throws everything into a new accounting premise, but this is not a reason which can be used.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Oh yes, most definitely, no doubt about it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

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

---

There is a car in your lounge room. Evidence there is no car maker?You say: you don't need to - there's plenty of other cars and car makers around, but no universe makers any place.I say: I don't need to either - there are no universes all around and no universe makers either. Your car came by itself - because you did not prove a car maker made the car in your lounge room.If your car never happened by itself and a car maker is behind it - the same applies to a more complex product like the universe.Its a sound premise.

quote:

---

Oh yes, most definitely, no doubt about it.

---

Not too loudly though: no life out there says a lot about Creationism. That it is focused, purposeful, unique and nothing to do with jitterbugging particles hitting the jackpot once every million of light years and only outside the known universe! In fact, it may be the only proof against Creationism: why here and nowhere else?!

If quantum theory is correct the 'known unverse mechanisms' you are referring to may be no more than a feature of the limits of human perception rather than inherent properties of nature.I assume by 'known universe mechanisms' you basically mean cause and effect?Random and uncaused effects are a key, inherent and observed feature of quantum processes.If the principle of cause and effect is nothing more than a macroscopic perception based fallacy within the existing universe what reason is there to think it MUST apply to anything at all? Especially the universe as a whole?Doesn't the inherent randomness and lack of causality described by the most spectacularly successful practical and predictive scientific theory ever devised rather blow your whole premise out of the water?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Which creation theory are we presenting evidence for?From Wiki:

quote:

---

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to rejection of evolution. The wide spectrum of such beliefs includes young Earth creationism holding a very literal interpretation of Genesis, while old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are compatible with scientific findings on evolution and the age of the Earth.

---

This post from IamJoseph highlights a problem in the O.P. title. Here, Joseph is really presenting his argument for theism; a theism with a creator God who is behind everything and whose existence cannot be proved or disproved.This is the kind of God who is normally outside the realms of science, and is not really part of a scientific evidence based debate, but a philosophical one. He brings it just into the realms of science by implying that he's observed a design somewhere, (...nothing else save a designer behind a design applies...) but in this case, he doesn't present his evidence for it, a claim that "evidence is bountiful" being entirely unsupported.How many creation "theories" are we supposed to argue against? And isn't the fact that there are so many evidence itself indicating that they're all made up, pretty much according to whim, and irrespective of evidence, just like the many creation mythologies of ancient cultures.They're about Faith, not evidence, hence the paucity of the efforts on this thread so far.

quote:

---

I assume by 'known universe mechanisms' you basically mean cause and effect?

---

Actually, I was refering to the actual spacial universe here, in the context of no life appearing wherever we look. This applies to travel to the moon, unmanned voyages to mars, voyager mission's transmissions from billions of miles outside this solar system, telescopic insights; radiation and other imprints, and signals sent from earth into space. Here, the universe traversed is the 'known' universe.The impact of QM works for creationism only and against randomness. Here, the issue of randomness was clearly overturned: there was a clear pattern even where it was assumed as a clearly random situation: 'Gd does not play dice' was a correct conclusion, making Einstein correct in not accepting what the initial results indicated. IOW, even when we cannot know where a particle may be positioned, even if it can land anyplace not pre-determinable - there exists a complex pattern here too. This definitive pattern embedded in what appeared a non-pattern, gave the world electronics and the chip! QM and a random foundation are mutually exclusive and antithetical.

Yes it is a sound premise if you assume that the universe is a designed item. However, I don't know how you can assume that. So the real question that everyone has asked of you and you can't seem to grasp is....HOW DO YOU KNOW THE UNIVERSE IS A DESIGNED OBJECT???!!Was that emphasized enough for you to comprehend?

Einstien and Newton both rejected the randomness premise underlieing a complexity; both were Creator based Creationists to their core.

quote:

---

HOW DO YOU KNOW THE UNIVERSE IS A DESIGNED OBJECT???!!

​

Was that emphasized enough for you to comprehend?

---

No lack of comprehension - not from me, anyways. Do you refer to a design being manifest and evident, or a designer (by your term, 'designED')? Do you want to define what constitutes a design?I regard gravity and the human body as awesome, complex designs, based on definitive and complex structures and engineerings. Further, I see all these structures as intergrated, which my small mind says, cannot in any wise be random occurences. And designED is best evidenced by an intergrated set of complex structures, while each of those structures may be unaware of each other.

This proves what? That you can use another in a long line of logical fallacies in your argument.This topic of the thread is evidence for creationism, and so far you have:(1) evidence of (apparent) design is evidence of a designer(2) randomness cannot occur so there must be a designerAside from the fact that both of these are arguments from ignorance, how do they show that YOUR faith is correct and not the thousands of other faiths in the world?So far all you have is a generic god-did-it assertion of evidence and NO connection to your faith.Without that connection this is not evidence for your faith.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.

quote:

---

(1) evidence of (apparent) design is evidence of a designer

---

Correct. No alternative exists here, and no science exists when this is strayed from.

quote:

---

(2) randomness cannot occur so there must be a designer

---

Correct. A complexity never results from a random foundation - even allowing an eternal period of time.

quote:

---

Aside from the fact that both of these are arguments from ignorance, how do they show that YOUR faith is correct and not the thousands of other faiths in the world?

---

Its got nothing to do with my faith - my arguements are logic based. Nor is it ignorant:'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT BE REASONABLY FOUNDED ON A RANDOM FOUNDATION' - Prof. Roger Premrose/author f Multiverse.

I am referring to a "design being manifest and evident". I believe you made the claim that the universe was designed. So, the definition of what constitutes a design is for you to provide and defend. By this statement you seem to be saying that definitive and complex structure in anything means it was designed. As was asked before, does this mean that snowflakes are designed?
Also, "complex structure" I understand but I am a little hazy on "definitive structure". What makes a structure definitive?BTW, is this topic for providing the best evidence for 6-day creationism or for all brands of creationism?

I think you (and to be fair me in my previous post) are confusing completely random with probability based theories.
Wholly and completely random systems are exceptionally unlikely to display any patterns at all as you correctly assert.
QM is not a theory of randomness however. It is a theory based on probability. Probability has an inherently random component but will obviously display predictable patterns as a whole.For example
Consider the radioactive half life of a substance X
We can accurately predict that half of the atoms will decay in a specified time.
The system as a whole obeys a predictable pattern. It is not random.
However we cannot ever predict which atoms will decay
That process is inherently random according to QMHow does that fit with creationist theories of causality?

depends on what part of the bible you read, and i'm not wholly sure myself.