Most convincing evidence for creation theory

quote:

---

The reason is less to do with the unlikelihood of an intelligence out in the depths of space somewhere and more to do with the obstacles that must be overcome to traverse any distance to another star system just on the basis of the physics.

---

This too is poor science and maths. Life, as per random, has not only never occured here for 4.5 B years or with our closest neighbours, or the vast known universe - it is also wrong to assume the distance has any bearing. This ignores that some space bodies may be older than those in our galaxy, yet NOT be impossibly far away. And we know that mental prowess is based on time. This says at least one of the billions of life forms which should be out there - will acquire the ability to send a message better than us. And we can send signals to billions of miles into space. If any signal of life was sent to earth - even billions of years ago - we would have this today and the matter would be resolved. When science retreats to such conditions - it is not science anymore.The time and distant factors only evidence the reverse of what is being submitted as evidence.

quote:

---

However, the ToE describes LIVING systems. There is a "definite aim" - survival.

​

Natural selection is not "random selection".

​

If this is beyond you capacity to understand, we can go into greater detail

---

I have also studied what you have. Of course the aim is survival - but it is based on random - there is no need to show no aim to evidence random. And survival is an effect - not a causation factor. Its like saying there is an aim to make a car - but eventually there is only random as its foundation, which is then denied by virtue each item used in the car self-generates towards that goal. That this is ubsurd is independent of whether one accepts Creationism or not; it is independently ubsurd, and comes from an agenda to contrive ubsurdities to justify that agenda.There is no science here - which is a pity, because science is a sacred institution. It is wasted acumen here. I too cannot prove a Creator - but acknowledge it as a sound premise nontheless, regardless of the ubsurdities existing in mutually exclusive religious doctrines. I don't reject science, I uphold it and fully appreciate medicine and Newton's elegant equations which explained why an apple falls to the ground. IMHO, there is no such thing as 'nature' or 'evolution' - yet I utilise these as intelligent placebos in place of what is inexplicable. Once science finds a more clearer reason for the inexplicable, the term nature is dropped for terms such as GRAVITY, MC2 and sublime equations. The latter affirms a design, it does not negate it.Survival is not an explanation to condone a random into a complexity - no matter how it is dressed up. Even if we are left with no answer - we still have to be clinging and demanding the sound premise. But I also agree science cannot go there - science cannot say there is a designer and sit back and do nothing. Thus science is only applicable to this side of the universal realm. Just as surely as science cannot tell us a thing about a pre-universe scenario, or the origins of - ANYTHING.

'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?

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.

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.