Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

It seems like the biggest problem with Christian creationism is the insistence by most Christians that the Christian God is the agent in the creation process. That's automatically against the rulebook in the game called science. I therefore propose replacing Christian creationism with quantum creationism, which I believe embodies the fundamentals of Christian creationism, yet can be defended as science.

Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

The answer to this question is yes. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

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.

Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution. Also, mainstream scientists are starting to lean more and more toward catastrophism. There is hard physical evidence for a global flood catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. And there is good evidence for devolution.

Shubee

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

This is still Creationism, regardless of what coat rack you hang it on.

The Red Sea division is a myth with no bearing on the existence of the universe. Quantum theory does not really apply to things like myths.

Moving this to Theology, although it really belongs in Strange Claims.

How anything can be made a scientific theory, though not necessarily a correct one
 

The problem with this, as a formal definition, is that “improbability” isn’t a formal mathematical term. Rather, “improbable” is a context-specific or informal synonym of “having a low probability”. It’s odd and not useful to describe the “improbability” of an event, because it’s at best the same as describing the probability of an event, or .

The bigger question of this thread, however isDetails aside, anything can be made into a scientific theory by expressing it as an understandable (to a given target audience, who may have very specialized language and skills) collection of techniques for generating predictions of experimentally verifiable outcomes. To be a correct theory, predictions must be made, experimentally tested, and found to be correct.

So to make a specific form of creationism (the term has many meanings, so requires more specific definition) into a scientific theory, one need only use it to make predictions. For the theory to be correct, experimental test of these predictions must find them correct.

This has been done many times for various forms of creationism. Young Earth creationism, for example, predicts that measurements of the age of animal and human remains should find no animal remains more than two days older than the oldest human remains, and that nothing whatever should be measured to be older than about 10,000 years. When tested with techniques such as examining fossil and radiometric dating, however, these predictions fail, so, as a scientific theory, young Earth creationism is not correct.

It is correct that the formalism of quantum mechanics describes the position and other attributes of particles of matter as a range of values related to probabilities. So, for any given particle, the probability that if will be detected within a volume arbitrarily distant from its most probable location, while very small, is non-zero. The probability that many particles would be detected in low-probability locations preserving their relative positions – ie: that the water of the Red Sea would be detected not in a parted path across it, yet still be water, not steam, or plasma, or a storm of rapidly decaying exotic particles – is many time less probable than for a single particle – a reasonable if simplistic estimate is , where is the number of particles. Because is very large, is very, very small.

I’ve not attempted to estimate these miniscule probabilities. As the idea’s champion, however, this sounds like a task for Shubee. ;) Shubee, explicitly making whatever assumptions and guesses you need, linking to any reference material you use, and showing your calculations, what do you calculate for the probability of the spontaneous parting of the Red Sea (or an easier-to-describe body of water)? :QuestionM

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

The main impediment to discussing this problem is the inability of most people
to eliminate the man-made concept of God from their minds when arguing points. Example here is the parting of the Red Sea myth which of course is immediately refuted by those of scientific bent , or that man was created 10,000 years ago, a story which is always used to point out how ridiculous creationists claims are. This is a ridiculous claim, but suppose the dates were off and man's ancestors appeared after the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago, or even much later.
My own argument is to imagine the earth does not exist, but the rest of the universe does. There is no one to confuse the issue by concocting the myth of an elderly man with a staff and long beard surrounded by angels. What then? 3 choices:
1. the universe was always here
2. the universe spontaneously appeared
3. the universe was created by some force that was/is not God
My point, do not argue the Bible, do not argue the existence of God, do not argue man-made myths--argue how the universe came to be. If it was created, creationism would be science.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Only so far as Craig has pointed out above. It's still a bad theory though. How do you test for creation? Without a way to do this, the theory falls apart at the predictive hypothesis stage.

One of the beauties of modern cosmology is that it doesn't care if the universe was created or not. ;)

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

The way you resolve humans being created 10,000 years ago is to define what they, the ancients, meant by human. We or science assumes they meant the superficial looking humanoid based on modern definitions of anatomy that were not around at the time the bible claim was made. We are comparing apples to oranges.

The ancient thought in terms of soul and spirit and not anatomy, which can be translated to mean heart and mind of a human. The formation of civilization is about the time of the bible claim, when there was a major change in humanity into diverse cultural activities, such as math, science, religion, commerce, architecture, art, etc. This actually corresponds fairly well with the bible date. This required a boost to the human mind away from the pre-humans who only looked human. The latter were called beasts of the field and not considered fully human. There were anatomically correct but their minds or spirits were pre-human.

Here is how off base science is in terms of normalized definitions. The "Gay Nineties" of 1890's was not the time time homosexuals came out of the closet in large numbers. I am using the modern definition of gay and working under the assumption people of 1890's knew this modern definition. Based on the erroneous claim of 1890's the people of that time knew nothing about sex orientations. That is the debate in a nutshell. The problem is no normalized definition and no attempt by science to take the date and see is humans under went a major behavioral change.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Let me give a more controversial example of this that is closer to modern times. I mean not insult by this but it helps make the point. Slavery in America was originally justified because the blacks were not considered fully human and therefore could be treated like animals. They were not thinking in terms of anatomy but were comparing ancient tribal behavior and superstitions to the propensities to western civilizations. Even the native americans were treated like savages who were not considered fully human or had a human soul. They were not basing their definition on anatomy but on mind and behavior (soul and spirit).

We need to figure out what the ancients defined as human to see if the 10K ago claim is valid. There are hints in the bible as to what they meant. Humans were made in the image of God according to the tradition. God was defined as spirit and not body. The ancients were not concerned with anatomy or body. If anything there was a push to punish the body since it was considered tainted. It is what was inside which was important. For example, according to judeo-christian tradition when you die sexuality is not retained in heaven since the essence of the human spirit was not connected to the physical body. I am not challenging the modern definition of humans. I am only trying to piece together what the ancients meant so we have a normalized definition. Once we have that, then we look to see if 10K years coordinates their definition.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

I don't think anyone can pin down when the idea of "soul" came about. I would imagine that the idea developed over many generations. It did not spontaneuously appear at an arbitrary point in time.

Anyhow, the ages given in the bible (which is used to calculate the "birth of man") are ridiculous with everything we know about biology. A human that lives 900+ years? I think not. :naughty:

Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

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?

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Probability and quantum mechanics opens the door to anything. So there is a finite probability that Shubee is correct. Where I was going with this is to question the basic premise of science and religion that the bible claim somehow defied space and time and used modern definitions. The religious assume this and science tries to refute it, with neither side seeing the flaw in terms of what was possible for humans 7000 years ago.

I would assume the ancients had something else in mind, when they defined human, that was more connected to behavior. In other words, their definition only had use of the eyes and no technology. So they could see animals had hearts, brains, lungs and blood just like humans. The difference would have to be something else. It would be connected to temperament. A humanoid acting like an animal would be called a beast. If they showed more civilized behavior they had something more and were called human. This temperament coordinates with the formation of civilization and the bible time table.

The next point is explaining what appear to be creationists claims in Genesis that the universe formed so quickly. The way this can be understood is the new human mind was more self aware and therefore aware of the world around them in a different way. This new awareness created the illusion these things appeared. In other words, nature was evolving but at a certain point, perception changed due to a new level of human awareness. They did not have modern understanding and assumed it just materialized.

Let me give an example. Before the former planet Pluto was discovered it did not exist in terms of human perception. One day it appeared. Modern people understand that it was always there, but the ancients did not have the benefit of collected knowledge. If they had discovered Pluto, they would say a god just put it there or it appeared out of the darkness that day. What they are documenting in genesis are dates of discovery when human awareness began to notice these things. Before that, the beasts of the field had little interest beyond eating and copulating and were not self aware enough to contemplate these things.

Seeing all the plants and animal form in one day can be explained logically.
This affect still occurs in modern times. Say there is a new discovery that is provocative. The day before nobody was thinking along certain lines. But the following day, after the discovery is revealed, people are brain storming and extrapolating in new directions they never thought possible, made possible by the discovery. All these new extrapolations appear suddenly, released by a trigger. The extrapolation into the perception of all the plants and animals only took a conceptual trigger. This does not mean they had cataloged all the species, just they became aware of how far detail extended in nature. If you existed at a time where there is zero information, with no conceptual means to organize this awareness, one simple explanation is it just suddenly appeared. This was correct in the sense that it did suddenly appear in the archives of human history.

Look at the news programs, today. Say a presidential candidate is discovered to cross dress. Once that is revealed, all the experts line up to analyze this. The amount of data and opinion generated by this trigger is enough to fill a truck. But it won't happen until the trigger induce the reaction. In genesis all that was needed was sort of a news trigger and a mind capable of extrapolation. In this case, thy used the eyes as a sensory tool to scan, see and become aware. It must have been quite a rush and overload that humbled them to higher powers that made all this just appear with blazing speed.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

We have no way of knowing what the original Bible really said. It was written over 2000 years ago by superstitious, ignorant people and has been translated several times, words redefined ,and explained out of context. I see no way to make scientific sense of its stories. On the other hand, all religions seem to have overlapping themes attempting to explain how we came to be.
However, evolution doesn't seem to answer many questions such as ; when man evolved into the Neanderthal, suddenly appeared modern man around
40,000 years ago. Where had he been hiding until that time? The Neanderthal
has a difference in genetic code from the Cro Magnon.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

For those of you who want to know, David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics basically boils down to the proposition that Physics should be dealt with entirely with abstract Mathematics, which is somewhat parallel to the division that has grown within the Physics community between Theoretical and Applied/Experimental Physicists.

As a result, Hydro's statement that:
is certainly relevant, but unfortunately does not at all make the problem with Shubee's first postulate go away.

What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis."

To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."

"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."

But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:

If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" because the decrease in frequency with different layers must have an explanation), uplifting of mountains that maintain the layers (in spite of the fact that the Bible claims no earthquakes or other major deformations of land at the same time as the great flood), and morphological progression evidenced in the layers (which are not explained by various "density of bones" theories common among Creationists), as well as many others.

In order to resolve these issues, a simple incredible stroke of luck that makes the great-flood a *possible* explanation is not enough, it requires the violation of known physical laws. These are not issues of improbability, but rather mathematical models providing clear contradictions that even Hilbert would agree with!

To put it more clearly, we're not even talking about a tornado in a junkyard, we're talking about say, gravity disappearing instantaneously, and then reappearing.

This would require a call to divine intervention, and thus make it by definition outside the realm of science.

Until you guys address this, I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere here.

Just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass, :phones:
Buffy

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.

For remarkable evidence that supports the theory of devolution and its direct observation in nature, see the article: Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com.

Note that the article states: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."

And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.

As for evidence that supports my third postulate, I'm very impressed by the utter simplicity of the observation that many petrified trees in the fossil record extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock.

Quantum indeterminancy is only a related concept. And quantum theory does make creationism possible. Physicists already admit that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence.


It's not astoundingly improbable. Evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. I think it's highly likely that there is no clear and indisputable fact that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events.

I learned the answer to that in a college intro course covering earth science and astronomy. The teacher was an avowed atheist. He explained that carbon-14 age has to be calibrated because the difference between carbon-14 age and tree-ring age increases as you go back in time. The comparison was shown graphically to the class in a slide presentation. Interestingly enough, there was less and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere as you go back in time. I understood the implications mathematically. Projecting carbon-14 availability from the known rapidly descending curve against tree-ring age implies that a carbon-14 test for anything beyond 20,000 years ago would appear virtually infinitely old. Accurate carbon-14 age determination is only as good as the oldest trees on earth if you make the usual adjustments. Anything beyond that limit is a guess.

Recall That The Universe Is Only 14 Billion Years Old
 

I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

Shubee

Re: Recall That Suppositions are just that
 

Look at it this way:
Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/100,000 for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^1 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

;)

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

To anyone who hasn't seen this yet, here is a list of specific creationist claims, and refutations of them:
An Index to Creationist Claims

Some of the refuted claims have been made/mentioned in this thread. It might save everyone time to read and review before getting into any crazy arguments.

To be clear, you're saying you believe that some religious MD who runs his own website has therein provided sufficient refutation of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed, published evidence spanning the fields of geology, paleontology, and genetics(to name a few).
You have to understand that this is an incredibly extraordinary claim to make. Especially given that the author of the website supports many fringe theories such as the religious pseudoscience of Michael Behe, which has been (almost unanimously) rejected by the science community and legal system as such.

Also of interest, 29+ evidences for macroevolution(heavy citation here):
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Re: Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

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) :hihi: 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.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

The Fossil Record

Reads like an "eye dee ten tea" problem to me.

Are All of The Mathematical Implications of Quantum Physics Science?
 

You're not even close to grasping my meaning. Buffy understood my intent almost perfectly. I'm asking a question:

Suppose we take the view that quantum physics is science. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory?

I have very little respect for Michael Behe as a defender of creationism. My purpose in citing The Fossil Record was to present a visual representation of my third postulate:

These statements were meant to convey the idea that however fantastically improbable quantum creationism may be when I adjoin to standard quantum physics my second and third postulate, I really do believe that my three-pronged axiomatized system is consistent and therefore meets the definition of science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Please understand that I'm not trying to prove quantum creationism true. I'm only trying to prove that quantum creationism is a logically consistent science. Just think of it as a word game that mathematicians like to play.

Correct. And you are probably aware that Hilbert's philosophy of mathematics has been summarized by the well-known attribution: "Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper."

re: Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

The most widely accepted definition of science is the one I gave above: a process of theory (AKA explanation) being used to make predictions which are tested (AKA validated or falsified) by experiment.There is a critical flaw with this approach: Hilbert’s approach to math, and by extension, physical science, generally known as formalism, is based on the assumption that a formal mathematical system isomorphic to physical reality that is complete, consistent, and decidable, exists. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that this assumption is untrue, not only for a fully reality-describing formal system, but even for a simpler system with a finite alphabet and the usual arithmetic operations.

This is certainly not to say that formalism is ineffective or bad, but rather that it is not innately superior to less than fully mathematically formal processes, but rather is practically useful as a tool in less formal processes. Though you’d be had pressed to find a more ardent proponent of formalism than me, even I stop short of agreeing with Shubee’s preference for formalism over experimentally verified science.

Another problem with formalism, which I and everyone I’ve read or spoken to with practical experience with formalism acknowledge, is that it’s very difficult. If one insists on accepting and applying only formally proven propositions, one would be incapable of practically any application of knowledge. Even with modern computer resources and personal genius, the amount of time necessary to follow Hilbert’s program to a point where this were not the case would likely take more than a human lifetime, which is beyond the bounds of most humans’ patience.There are at least a couple of problem with this approach.

First, in a mathematically formal sense, there are not axioms, because they are not described in terms of an enumerated collection of terms (an alphabet) and operations within some formal system. This requirement is difficult to explain tersely – to understand it, if the reader does not already, I recommend reading chapter 14 of Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, and its supporting internal and external referenced.

Second, there is a well-know gap in the knowledge domain of quantum mechanics and disciplines such as biology, paleontology, and geology. Even using the best present approximation methods and computer resources, we are not able use rigorous quantum mechanical formalism to describe even a single living cell. While quantum mechanics has provided interesting intuitive speculations into at least neurology (eg: Penrose’s “physics of consciousness”), present-day techniques and resources appear far from able to support a practical theory of “quantum biology”, etc.

If a theory of “quantum Darwinian evolutionary biology” in presently unfeasible, so is a theory of “quantum creationism”.

Support for suppositions?
 

Without evidence supporting these suppositions - for specific approximate numbers, specific calculations showing how they were arrived at – it strikes me as no more reasonable to suppose them than to suppose that a host of angels are physically sitting around my kitchen table offering firsthand testimony to the literal veracity of specific stories from the Bible book of Genesis.

I believe Buffy is correct in her assertion that Darwinian evolution is much more likely an explanation for present day observation than Biblical creationism. Shubee, do you have any evidence to support the suppositions you offer? :QuestionM

PS: IMHO, these sort of statements are some of the best brief summaries of formalism. I encountered one first in when I read GEB in 1980 – Hofstadter terms what they describe “typographical rules”, and uses the idea extensively throughout the book.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Someone please explain to me why we have to argue floods and dates when we try to determine whether or not the universe was created? Why do we only consider a mythical happening one one infinintesimal planet?

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Mainly because the Conservative Christian right demands it! Creationism has historically only applied to life on the Earth. You are the first creationist I know of who has claimed it applies only to the beginning of the universe instead. Creationism could be turned into science the way a turd could be jewelry, no matter how you shape it it's still shit.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Well, of course not. Unfortunately Mr. Pitman is highly selective in his choice of "examples," and if you'd like to digress into a discussion of any of his points, I guess I'd be glad to entertain you. Suffice it to say that he does not address--mostly because he is promoting "Intelligent Design" as opposed to "Young Earth Creationism"--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--as both Craig and Freeztar have noted--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.
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."

As Bob Dylan once said, "the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changin'." Hard to come up with a *better* evolutionary explanation for the "conundrum" you are trying to show here.

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. Why would urchins and starfish be punished with the removal of their brains? What did they do to deserve such treatment?
Well, I'd encourage you to read the paper by Dr. Harold Coffin "The Yellowstone Petrified "Forests" which is cited on that page: you'll find that it really does not support the argument that such layers around petrified trees is somehow unusual, and in fact in its addendum, it shows how the process is actually being replicated in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens post its 1980 erruption!

Trees fossilize, and if they are surrounded by sediment that initially develops and washes away, that paper explains why they do indeed do so in situ, thus causing "millions of years"--something that is clearly creative license with the facts--of sediment to grow around them.

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.
But none of what you've stated here makes "creationism possible." All you've pointed to is the fact that yes, complex systems--with the input of large amounts of energy (to ensure no violation of the laws of Conservation of Energy)--*can*--although not always--create more complexity "out of nothing," and then yes decay just as easily.

These processes can be demonstrated with very simple--and entirely mathematical--system, that require no call to an outside, metaphysical creator: they come into existence simply based on known and quite obvious laws of mathematics.

We can get into interesting philosophical arguments about the nature of mathematics of course, and the Platonic notion of mathematical truth as transcending "physical truth" (an excellent discussion of which you will find in Chapter 1 of Roger Penrose's Road to Reality, to utilize your own reference!): Is it possible to argue that the Creator could create mathematics arbitrarily to suit Her notions of what reality should be? If not, then given that what we see is entirely explainable through abstract mathematical truth, the notion of a Creator is not only unnecessary in the sense of Occam, it is by definition unprovable!
Well, except for that carbon-14 data....you see, in spite of calls to its "inaccuracy" you apparently missed the point: you can *ignore* its exact alignment--which can easily be explained by error ranges due to specific environmental variations for which there is no direct evidence in specific samples--but still get *relative* datings that must align. Its as simple as this: layers that are obviously undisturbed can show differences in "accuracy" that are well within statistical deviations. You do not find items that are close in undisturbed physical strata that are hundreds of thousands or millions of years apart with no obvious explanation: the trees you reference above are dated to the strata *at their roots*, not randomly assorted as one would find in a typical "catastrophe."

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.

My favorite theory of the Great Flood is that of a natural dam/waterfall at the Bosporous that in a very short period of time broke and inundated a then mostly dry Black Sea, for which there is some significant--although not conclusive--physical evidence. The interesting thing about this particular theory is that it well-explains the historical story, while it shows that the effects of such a hydrological inundation--while quite devastating to the local inhabitants--did almost nothing to the geological record. In fact there's little physical evidence at all!

Have you asked yourself the question: what sort of hydrological action would be *required* to cause the evidence of geological strata to exist? Those provided by sites like Answers In Genesis are unfortunately laughably incomplete and provide nothing but issue after issue with the actual data that is never addressed because, well, there's no alternative explanation that would allow such geological evidence to be created by a "really big storm."

Monkey men all, in business suit, teachers and critics all dance the poot, :phones:
Buffy

Every possible creation story and the MWI
 

Forum-wide, we don’t. The idea that various religious creation stories are metaphorical rather than literal is an interesting, if centuries old, one, worthy of many threads. However, this thread is about the idea that a particular creation story could be literally, because, according to some interpretations of quantum physics, nearly anything can be true.

We’ve not yet much discussed in this thread the concept of interpretations of theories of quantum physics, as opposed to the theories themselves, in particular the many-worlds interpretation, which explains the probabilistic nature of quantum physics with the idea that everything that can happen actually does in some “alternate universe”, or world-line. According to this interpretation, in some universe other than our own, the most literal reading of the Genesis account actually happened. In another, the clearly factious one of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism happened. In another, a creation story never imagined in our universe happened.

In yet others, some past happened, then the universe spontaneously changed so that all evidence reveals that something different happened. In some “chaos” world-lines, pasts and futures are so disjoint that, for all practical purposes, causation is not a meaningful concept

In short, in some universe, any arbitrary creation story, including every completely senseless one, happened.

The MWI is well known and very controversial. One of the major objections to it is that, in it’s pure form, it’s physically irrelevant. The many world-lines are causally unconnected, which means that, by definition, they can’t interact in any way. In a sense, separate world-lines are less than imaginary, as even imaginary worlds are real in the sense that they exist as configurations of neurons and chemicals in the brains of the people imagining them. Alternate world are not even connected to our universe in this manner – there’s no causal link between them and our universe whatever.

IMHO, a similar objection applies to any sort of “quantum theory of creation”. Any arbitrary past might possibly have occurred, but the practical value of this, scientific or religious, is nothing.

Re: Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

CraigD,

Your argument here is incorrect. It's true that Hilbert's original ideas on formalism were overly ambitious. But even the Wikipedia article you cite says, "Much of Hilbert's program can be salvaged by changing its goals slightly." Also, it's widely recognized by mathematicians that Hilbert's intellectual achievements on the foundations of mathematics were revolutionary. More to the point, there is simply no significant connection between David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics and Hilbert's efforts to prove the consistency of mathematics.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Since we can only observe one universe and barely understand it, why should we belabor some mathematical exercises which could theoretically allow for others? Maybe if the math was more pure, we wouldn't have the conjecture.
Since a majority of posters agree there is no God as is described in the Bible, (or other religious tomes) why don't we argue the possiblity that the world was created by some all powerful agent? If there was a BB, wouldn't there have to be a cause? If the universe is ordered and works by physical laws, does that not point to cause? There was cause or there was no cause. Is there any thing whatsoever that would point to no cause?

The Ascent of Man
 

That's a very nicely stated claim. Can you also supply the proof?

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:

.
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.

This thread is about quantum creationism, not mainstream creationist theory.

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.

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?

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:

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Suppose there was a flood in ancient times. Suppose someone built a large boat. Since the Bible is a collection of stories written by a primitive people about the very circumscribed area in which they lived, what do the above stories prove? Suppose the flood enveloped the whole planet, could the millions of varieties of life be packed into the Ark? How much water did they drink? Where did they get their food? What do any of the Biblical stories prove, even if correct?

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

This is an important question to ask, and one too often overlooked.

Re: The Ascent of Man
 

Sure, its easy. The Great Flood would require the complete physical displacement, up to and exceeding complete liquefaction of at least the top 5 miles of at least all of the continental surfaces of the Earth. Extremely large earthquakes can cause such liquefaction in pure sandy soils that are already partially hydrated, however the amount of energy required to do this planet wide, not just in sandy soils, would require far more energy than could be produced by any force other than a massive innundation of meteorites. If enough meteorites hit the Earth's surface to provide the requisite energy, even perfectly distributed, it would have resulted in both the complete evaporation of all water on the surface of the earth--ejecting most of it into space--and would have resulted in the entire surface of the earth becoming molten, obliterating all traces of "Pre-Adamite" species.

That's just one approach though: you could try to explain it by gravity weakening to a small fraction of its current value for the length of the deluge (although that would have caused some significant problems for folks on any boat floating in the ocean!), but even then, pure hydrologic soaking will not stir anything beyond the top layer, and there would also have to be an odd effect of the gravitational weakening that would cause layers to be formed in perfect alignment with carbon-14 concentrations, for which there is no known physical force.

We can go on and on like this if you'd like, but the fact is that it is indeed physically impossible to create what we see here in 40-days without breaking physical laws. If you'd like to show how its possible, please do so.

But this is just a sideshow of course, the fundamental flaw is still your first postulate "there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory." This is quite vague, and at the very least requires much more definition. As I read it, it translates into "if there is quantum randomness, then any state of reality is possible *instantaneously*," where--to apply your third postulate--"40 days and 40 nights is sufficiently short to constitute "instantaneous."

We can certainly conceive of *some universe* where the physical laws are such that something like this would happen, but *our universe* certainly has different ones, and *that* universe would look nothing like our own!

But within our own universe, time makes virtually anything possible, and the only thing that you add here is the "Creationist" notion that it was created this way, and nothing came before.

The question then becomes, why is this a necessary postulate? What explanatory power does it add to say that the Earth sprang into being instantaneously?
Well, of course the series was almost exclusively about the development of human *culture* and *knowledge* and had almost nothing to say about evolution.

Could you come up with a more relevant citation to try to prove this point? Its quite clearly fallacious, although it is a *frequently used* argument among those who argue against evolution. Again, this is an excellent example of a Straw Man argument.
Do you invest in the stock market? Over the long run it does indeed go up. Over the short-term you see all sorts of "devolution." Over the extremely long run, we'll probably become the next Rome and it will all go to hell in a handbasket....but then then next civilization will come along....what is devolution? You seem to argue that it is a monotonically decreasing function.

I would hope that as a mathematician that you would be able to distinguish between a monotonically decreasing function and a stochastic data set. I hope also you have an appreciation for how functions (in the real word, the physical laws) impose order on stochastic data: add a Poisson distributed data set to a sine wave, and you'll have a pretty jagged sine wave, but Fourier will still find the sine wave!

The notion of "complexity" is that where feedback loops in processes exist, over time, random inputs can change the elemental functions and add new ones by duplication and bifurcation.

These changes can either improve *or* damage the ability of the system to be suited to the *particular environment.*

As an example, fish have the ability to extract oxygen from water by absorbing it. Many fish have evolved very efficient mechanisms to perform this process, but now that they find themselves in heavily polluted environments, those with more efficient gills find they also more efficiently absorb toxins making them *less* well suited to the environment.

I would not digress into this elemental description of evolution except for the fact that you have so badly misstated its key premises.
Fair enough, but given that, you still need to deal with the objection that so far, your postulate *assumes* that "quantum randomness makes any configuration of physical matter possible in 'instantaneous' time scales," a notion that needs to be supported before we can go anywhere.

In the meantime, while "traditional Creationist" arguments might be argued to be off-topic, they are the inevitable next step, because unless you can provide a basis for the "anything is possible instantaneously" argument, then the physical laws that these "traditional" arguments try to explain away, are indeed germane to the discussion.
Can you cite one?
Just to repeat, in order to justify even your first postulate, you must describe how quantum randomness makes anything possible instantaneously: from a purely mathematical viewpoint, you cannot make the effects of the functions that define a model disappear completely, no matter how much stochastic noise is created. I am not making any claim based on improbability here, simply a basic understanding of how interrelated functions in a model interact.

If you really wanted to go somewhere with this, I'd strongly recommend throwing out your second and third postulates for now, and simply deal with trying to prove that anything is always possible.

We gain our ends only with the laws of nature; we control her only by understanding her laws, :phones:
Buffy

Re: The Ascent of Man
 

My guess is that you are using Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7.0 with the default setting, which is set to not let you see any embedded YouTube videos. The second YouTube video in my last post on page 3 answers 'how it is possible' directly.

The first video in my preceding post clearly shows, according to evolutionists, how man evolved out of ooze in the primordial soup. That's quite a transformation. That was my proof.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

This argument has been beaten to death because of the attempt to justify Biblical myths, which can't be done. If it were possible by quantum theory to say the flood occurred, it would still have to occur in the time span of man, with enough engineering knowledge to build a boat. Does geology
substantiate this occurrence? If the Red Sea parted, it would have to happen exactly when the Israelites were leaving Egypt. Is there evidence of this?
Why do we continue to attempt to justify the Bible as a true account when
there are so many exaggerations and parables in it?
Why not argue creationism from the standpoint of causality or non-causality? This is where the truth will be found.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Bible stories served the purpose of creating a lesson. It is loosely analogous to children's fable. I am not saying it is just a fable only it was there to teach a lesson. Relative to the great flood story, the reason it occurred, that is given, is god was mad at the sorry state of humanity. I am only telling the account and not placing any value judgement.

Relative to an ancient person hearing this account, they would be made more cautious about ignoring similar warnings about divine insight. Whatever behavior was included for the punishment of the story, would be resisted with more will power. I am not making a moral judgement only trying to guess how this story would affect the next generation of humans who heard it. They could not go back to the good old days of distorted instinct. The past was washed away in the story and a new path was given with the world refreshed. Noah hand picks the best animals and not the defective and mutant ones. The chosen animals seem to have an instinct for survival and migrate to the ark. The defective animals are eliminated with the defective and mutant humans. This is the lesson. Whether this occurred or not, it had an impact.

Here is an analogy of the debate. We start with the fable of the tortoise and hare. The lesson to be gained is steady perseverance can often do better than a bi-polar attitude of manic and lazy. Not a bad lesson to teach. Science says, we have data that proves that neither rabbits or turtles can talk or organize a race. Therefore, since this is not possible, except with quantum mechanics, the lesson you are trying to teach has no value. We conclude manic/lazy is good as perseverance. This way we don't hurt feelings and get the PC police to boycott further funding to your project. I look at this story, figuratively. It does not conflict with common sense and the science data, but still tells us something about social pushes that helped humanity to evolve.

The Fundamental Physics of Quantum Creationism
 

That's fair enough. I shall first summarize the fundamental physics of quantum creationism, which is based on the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. And I'll also share how I came to understand the fundamentals of this physical theory.

I was taught quantum improbability in high school. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained it to the class. He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea. My next encounter with the concept of fantastic quantum improbabilities was in the book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by the prominent physicist George Gamow. I was deeply impressed by his representation of quantum improbability in that book. Consider this excerpt:

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

A review by SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA said, "Science students will find it worth while for it is definitely a good supplement to a modern physics textbook."

A review by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said, "Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific."

Presumably therefore, quantum physics is a scientific theory. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory? I believe so.

All the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics are based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

I believe I am correct in identifying quantum physics as the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

I do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

You asked for clarification. That's fair enough. I believe that I can make the first postulate of quantum creationism clearer and even make it understandable to a general audience. Consider the following easy-to-understand conversation from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters, which I interpret as a spoof on science and pseudo-science:

It really is true that the fantastic improbabilities explained to me by my high school physics teacher and the excerpt that I quoted from George Gamow's book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, is well-known and well-accepted physics. Shall we dare think about the far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics by taking well-understood conventional physics to its logical conclusion?

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed all around the Earth could end all life as we know it, almost instantaneously. I argue that if all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, then it follows mathematically that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

I wish to make clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the opinions of the general physics community in regard to my theory. As foretold in prophecy, it's an absolute certainty that many respectable physicists will strongly protest my use of quantum physics in a fun application for which they do not approve:

It all boils down to a debate between physicists and mathematicians. As I've said before, 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. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

In your understanding of quantum mechanics, with infinite time there is a possibility for anything to happen...is that correct? Since man has been here only 6-8 million years, isn't there also an equal possibility that during that limited time frame none of the miraculous events claimed occurred? Indeed, isn't it possible that these events never would occur?

Re: The Fundamental Physics of Quantum Creationism
 

Why? Why a religious book written by desert people in the Bronze Age?


I'm confused by this argument, is this an accurate simplified version?:

1 in quantum mechanics the location of a particle is described with probabilities
2 Therefore anything is possible
3 Also, Shubee's creation myth/religion of choice is true/real
4 So evolution is wrong and a world flood happened


edit- wasn't sure if I was stating that clearly at first