Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Einstein was far from a theistNetwon spent more time trying to turn things into Gold than he did considering either God or the universe.Einstein was wrong about randomness. Nobody is perfect I guess.

So you admit that it is not evidence for your faith and your particular brand of creationism. Thanks for clearing that up.Now can we get to the positive evidence for your creationism?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:

---

As was asked before, does this mean that snowflakes are designed?

---

Yes. In their appearence, weight, size and purpose.

quote:

---

Einstein was far from a theist
Netwon spent more time trying to turn things into Gold than he did considering either God or the universe.

---

Einstein, born and raised in a precarious time and place, evidenced his belief in his later years; Newton was a deeply religious man - his letters and essays were released recently on Creationism.

quote:

---

Einstein was wrong about randomness. Nobody is perfect I guess.

---

Not so. That he could not accept randomness in Quantumn makes him correct and vindicated.

quote:

---

Now can we get to the positive evidence for your creationism?

---

Why do you think science has not found any cause behind the universe's emergence - or a single item's origin within the universe? This is evidence, even in a murder trial in a court, as (circumstantial) evidence by elimination. No alternative exists for creationism. Sorry if this offends your faith.

I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in one post.In addition to including numerous falsehoods and outright nonsensical assertions, what does any of that have to do with what you quoted?I said: Now exactly what support do you have for the Bible being given more weight than any other creation myth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So essentially you are arguing that your beliefs must be true because of the 'first cause argument' which is what, 2500 years old? So how does the first cause argument support your specific belief system as opposed to any other?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Oh, so you know Doctor Pangloss?

Firstly it's a difficult question. Science is like that.Secondly you are presuming principles of causality for which there is evidence against. Once you get beyond linear cause and effect as anything other than a convenient and reliable model derived from the limitations of human perception, you will be able to evolve beyond these fantasies and enjoy the true wonder of nature as it really is.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Vindicated how?

No. No-one has ever told you that. You made that up.

Could you try to tell the truth more often?"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." -- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human SideStill, at least you didn't go so far as to claim that he was a creationist. I suppose a man ignorant of evolution would be a creationist by default. But did he have any good arguments for it? You do know how the EPR experiment turned out, don't you?No, I guess you don't. Why don't you look it up?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"eather" [sic]? Aether? What are you talking about? The luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether" -- Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia) is a 19th century concept that could never be supported experimentally and was superceded in the early 20th century by Einsteinian physics.Laddie, you're stuck in the 19th century. Time you join us in the 21st century.PS
That Wikipedia article mentions modern geocentrists who base their beliefs on fundamentalist Christianity. You aren't one of those, are you? In that case then, you'd be stuck in a far earlier century than the 19th.PPS
From "Modern geocentrism" (Geocentric model - Wikipedia) (my emphasis):

quote:

---

Most geocentrists are more extreme and reject essentially all of modern astronomy and cosmology. A belief commonly associated with this view is that the stars are much closer than they are measured to be and are embedded in a rigid substrate. This substrate is referred to as aether (not to be confused with the classical concept of luminiferous aether). This aether is believed to revolve around the Earth in one sidereal day, but this revolution varies on a yearly cycle (in order to explain observations like aberration of light). An analogy is drawn to the gyroscope, which also exhibits a much slower precession on top of its primary rotation. This viewpoint does not adequately explain frame-dependent forces such as the Coriolis force since it also rejects most of physics including the theory of general relativity.

---

Is this what you meant by your reference to "eather" [sic]?Edited by dwise1, : PSEdited by dwise1, : PPS

Excuse me while I chuckle: you have had 150 plus some odd posts to provide evidence for your faith version of creationism, and all any of you can provide is: You can provide no evidence for anything more than a Deist god that designed the universe to operate by his physical laws.Not one piece of evidence for any involvement since then, because everything, down to the formation of snowflakes and the behavior of subatomic particles, is governed by those established physical laws. It doesn't: I'm a Deist. A highly amused Deist.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

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.

I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on ya, mate, but the only reference to Roger Pre(i?)mrose author of Multiverse was you on another forum.Could you point me to where I might find this "Atheist Cosmologist's" work. Maybe a website or an ISBN number (I couldn't find him on Amazon either, though).Or was he just made up in your head to give the appearance that you could back up your arguments?