Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
Suffice it to say that he does not address... the issue that the Great Flood theory of geologic observations relies on a stochastic process that would require physical causes for the observed ordering that are in direct contradiction with known--and reproducible--laws of hydrodynamics. How this layering occurs in perfect correlation with a variety of dating methods is at the very least...many, many orders of magnitude more improbable than Evolution, and indeed, as I later stated, would really require the temporary suspension of physical laws in order to achieve.
|
That's a very nicely stated claim. Can you also supply the proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
The "theory of devolution" is based almost exclusively on a purposeful misinterpretation of Evolution.
Evolution DOES NOT say that the result is "ever increasing complexity" or even "improvement." "Better" is a function of the *specific environment*, and is NOT some sort of abstract truth about superiority. As the article you linked does indeed show examples of "devolution" but that is fundamentally irrelevant in either finding fault with Evolution: Evolution makes no such claim, and to use this as the basis for finding such fault is a " Straw Man Argument." |
I regard the mechanism "survival of the fittest" as a tautology and consider the claim that scientists never insinuate religious, long-term conclusions for the theory of evolution as clever propaganda. If evolution in biology only means change over time, then I suppose that I'm a creationist-evolutionist that accepts natural selection.
Have you ever watched the series,
The Ascent of Man on TV? Ascent means "movement upward from a lower to a higher state, degree, grade, or status; advancement." That's exactly what many evolutionary scientists teach. See this video:
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
Oddly enough however, calls to devolution are in fact a great argument against Creationism, since it requires an explanation for why an Intelligent Creator would cause devolution to occur.
|
I prefer to look at the evidence scientifically. To me, the theory of devolution is as certain as the creation of the universe in an initial highly ordered state, which, by all accounts, is unquestionably increasingly decaying toward an inevitable cosmic death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
This is just one of the many ways in which "mainstream" Creationist theory has distorted existing data that actually disproves what it claims to prove.
|
This thread is about quantum creationism, not mainstream creationist theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
But none of what you've stated here makes "creationism possible."
|
There are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
The notion of a Creator is not only unnecessary in the sense of Occam, it is by definition unprovable!
|
I am not invoking a Creator in the background for quantum creation theory. If there are mathematical statements in arithmetic that are unprovable, why should I be troubled by the existence of God being unprovable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
Simply by making calls to "obvious catastrophes" of quite small scale, you do not explain how not only there was a global catastrophe, but that it had the ability to disturb layers of geological strata that cannot be moved by any amount of water thrown at it over a space of 40 days.
Have you asked yourself the question: what sort of hydrological action would be *required* to cause the evidence of geological strata to exist? ... there's no alternative explanation that would allow such geological evidence to be created by a "really big storm."
|
I have merely stated three postulates. Can you really prove that no fantastic quantum mechanical explanation exists that might justify the third postulate?
Here's someone with enough imagination to at least believe that the third postulate is conceivable:
