34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + + + + + + + +
User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 14:32, May 7, 2008
, 14:32, May 7, 2008no edit summary
* Some scientists assume that there was no supernatural creator, and so attempt to find explanations of how things came to be within the laws of physics, but must also attempt to find explanations of how those laws of physics came to be.
* Some scientists assume that there was no supernatural creator, and so attempt to find explanations of how things came to be within the laws of physics, but must also attempt to find explanations of how those laws of physics came to be.
* Some scientists assume that there was a supernatural creator, so attempt to find explanations of how things came to be without being constrained by the assumption of no creator.
* Some scientists assume that there was a supernatural creator, so attempt to find explanations of how things came to be without being constrained by the assumption of no creator.
1. That we have consistent laws of nature is not an assumption but an issue that has been overcome by gauge field theory. Although if you refuse to accept a past based upon quantum mechanics then it is a little inconsistent of you to deny long term radioactive decay.
2. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is based upon the idea of an observer created reality. Reality may merely be a completed article of sensory percpeption, thus limiting us to the trust of our senses. That does not however mean we are in a state of epistemological democracy that makes a 6000 year old world as likely as a 15 billion year old one.
3. That laws need a creator is an assumption in itself.
== Do creationists start with their conclusion? ==
== Do creationists start with their conclusion? ==