Most convincing evidence for creation theory

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

If radioactive decay is not random why can you not predict when a single atom will decay?Unless you can answer that you have no valid answer. Individual atoms are randomly decaying all around you. All the time.You are so wrong I barely know where to start!Mathematically the probability of decay can be described as a distribution dependent on the number of atoms in question.With an infinite number of atoms of half life X the probability of predicting the number that decay in a given time is 1 (i.e. certain)For ANY number of atoms LESS than INFINITY the result is not certain. It may be accurate for a large number of atoms but you cannot predict EXACTLY how many will decay or which INDIVIDUAL atoms will decay.
For a small number of atoms the results will in fact be extremely inaccurate.
There is an element of uncertainty that increases the less atoms under consideration due to the inherently random nature of the underlying process.For one atom the distribution flattens out to 0
In other words it can decay at any time from time=0 to time=infinity
In other words it is not predictable
In other words it is fundamentally and inherently random You could not be more wrong if you tried.
Random processes take place in nature all the time everywhere.IF THEN your whole creationist argument is founded on a mathematically and empirically refuted premise.No need to take my word for it. There is reams of documented evidence that you could refer to if you were not so irrevocably immersed in your warped fantasy.Again I repeat the question so that you cannot evade it -If radioactive decay is not random why can you not predict when a single atom will decay?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

IndeedAs one of the three (Crashfrog was one other not sure who the last was) who agreed that apparent design is the best evidence for creationism of some sort I would like to point out that just because it is the BEST evidence does not necessarily mean it is GOOD evidence.It is the best evidence because the other evidences that were cited are even worse.
Also to be fair I can sympathise with how easy it is to mistake apparent design for actual design if taken at face value with no further investigation into the underlying mechanisms.It is true that many natural things do 'seem' to be designed. Absolutely.In other words the best creationists can say is "It looks like it was designed" and that, frankly, is worth bugger all.

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.

I don't believe you and I have ever discussed the bible before now. Are you thinking of someone else?
Whatever the case no need for the aggressive attitude. I would presuppose any book to be non-credible and non-objective evidence unless it can demonstrate otherwise in some way. Books are written by humans. Humans lie and get things wrong.Any conclusions about nature should be founded in study of nature directly.Speaking to a Muslim the other day - He was convinced the Koran described the Big Bang and claims that it therefore "predicted" BB theory
What physical evidence is there to justify the bible as evidence over the Koran for example?