Sorry I don't have time to answer all the questions I think were directed at me, but here's some quick responses:
Stephen - Yes, I have had a strong interest in space since I first saw a picture of Captain Kirk on an alien planet 30 years ago.
Bassman:
"Why does it seem confusing that a creator would use natural sciences to do his creating?"
I have no problem with that idea. I think I wasn't quite clear about my use of the word "creationism". Which brings me to....
littlefella:
"You assume that creationism inevitably leads to the Biblical creationism. This narrows the dispute to Christianity."
Yes, I should have been clear that I was using the term "creationism" as it is usually used in my community; that is, the literal interpretation of the Bible. I had meant to clarify that, but in my haste I overlooked it.
"The age of the universe (proven or not) does not require creationism to be wrong."
Unless we're talking about literal interpretation of the Bible, which I was.
"There are lines of thoughts based on scientific methods leading to creationism as the only plausible explanation of the Beginning of the Universe."
And as I said, I am inclined to agree with them. The reason I believe the Universe was not a fluke is because I believe that's the conclusion scientific methodology leads us to.
"You put creationism and science opposite each other and judge both on the basis that if one is right then the other must be wrong."
If you're talking about the 7-day version of creationism, then that's right. Otherwise, science has no problem in accepting a Creator.
"You assume that for God to exist he must be good."
No I don't.
"By saying “I believe science can demonstrate that the chances of an accidental Universe are infinitely small” you demonstrate just another belief, not a scientific fact."
That's right, and it's why I am careful to say "I believe" or "IMO" when I am dealing with something which is not an indisputable scientific fact. Science is not all black and white.
My interpretation of the evidence is that there is effectively no chance that the Universe was born by accident. If I could prove this beyond doubt then I wouldn't be posting it at V7N, I'd be reporting it in
Nature.
"The science of Christmas pudding (or any pudding for that matter) is actually pretty damn valid science; lots of chemistry going on there"
No argument from me, but of course I never said that pudding isn't science, I implied that creationism isn't pudding. In any case, Christmas pudding rocks. I trust we can all agree on this point
"if the Universe did have a beginning, then there was a time when it didn't exist."
According to conventional science this is not true. Time is an integral part of this Universe, just like the other three dimensions (hence the term "spacetime"). Asking what happened before the Universe was created is like asking where a road went before it was made.
I'd love to stay involved in this thread but I need to bow out. Got a trip away to plan. Have fun kids, this is a good thread
