Science Forums 2

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science. I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."

Do you see any obvious contradiction in quantum creationism when I add to my first axiom (quantum theory) my second and third axiom?

My problem with the "scientific creationism" idea less to do with the probabilities of the Red Sea parting as it does with the Red Sea parting on command. It's bad enough that the universe will not exist long enough for this to have happened at random but for it to have happened at the precise moment the Israelites needed it to is many order of magnitude less probable. Then of course there are many other problems with the veracity of the Bible. One real biggie is the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. the middle east is not that big, in 40 years they could have wondered to South America, given the means they could have wondered to Mars in 40 years (exaggeration guys) I remember being around twelve years old and wondering just how stupid someone would have to be to wander for 40 years in such a small place. The bible is full of this stuff so why should we even try to "prove" one small part of what is obviously a work of literature meant to be a moral guide line and not a true history of Life on Earth much less the universe.