Shubee
|
 |    | 
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
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).
Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living being."
Exodus 14:21
"Then Moses
stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD
swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night
and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters
were divided." | |
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.
Indicators for human
extinction
Human telomeres are
already relatively short. Are we likely to become
extinct soon?
1: Cancer
Cancer
incidence does seem to have increased, but it is
hard to say whether this is due to longer
lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion.
The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the
short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are
affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene
on this chromosome.
2:
Immunodeficiency
Symptoms of an impaired
immune system (like those seen in the Aids
patients or the elderly) are related to telomere
erosion through immune cells being unable to
regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more
from diseases caused by an impaired immune system
might be a result of telomere shortening between
generations.
3: Heart attacks and
strokes
Vascular disease could be caused by
cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace
themselves - a potential symptom of telomere
erosion.
4: Sperm
counts
Reduction in male sperm count (the
jury is still out on whether this is the case) may
indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes
are possible. | |
Shubee
-------
Isn't
it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently
about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that
they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into
existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about
fundamental questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 20 |
Posted: 2:16 PM on September 16, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
The
fossil record does not support a global flood.
For
instance, fluid mechanics (and you can test this in your sink)
argues that similar mass objects sink at the same rate with
minor deviations for angle entry given the same basic shape.
Therefore, if there was a global flood, we should see similar
mass organisms all in the same layer. Meaning, we should see
small dinosaurs, medium sized mammals, medium sized birds, and
small~medium sized reptiles all in the same layer. That simply
does not happen. Furthermore, we should NOT see large mass
organisms in the same layer with lots of low mass organisms.
That however, is the case. Furthermore, based on fluid
mechanics we should see simple and complex organisms of the
same type, ie, shellfish all together in the same layer. Does
not happen anywhere. Instead we see complex animals at the top
and simple at the bottom despite similarities in mass.
The fossil record doesn't in any way support a global
flood.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 4:41 PM on September 16, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on
September 16, 2008 :
The question must be
asked, What the hell is devolution??? It
isn't a scientific term, and if you understand how
evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.
I think we have another official sounding
creationist word that really means
nothing.
| |
Wouldn't
the backwards re-engineering of the mutant chickens into
dinosaurs be de-evolution? Returning to a previous genetic
state?
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 10:48 PM on September 16, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:48 PM on
September 16, 2008 :
Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on
September 16, 2008 :
The question must be
asked, What the hell is devolution??? It
isn't a scientific term, and if you understand
how evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.
I think we have another official sounding
creationist word that really means
nothing.
| |
Wouldn't
the backwards re-engineering of the mutant
chickens into dinosaurs be de-evolution? Returning
to a previous genetic state? | |
No.
"De-evolution" or "devolution" implies that the state of the
population is degrading or going 'backwards". Returning to a
previous genetic state is not the same thing. So long as a
species is able to propagate and avoid extinction through
reproduction and genetic change, it is evolving completely
regardless of what it's evolving into. When you attach
direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding what evolution
means.
| 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. | |
Indicators
for human extinction
Human telomeres are
already relatively short. Are we likely to become
extinct soon?
1: Cancer
Cancer incidence
does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say
whether this is due to longer lifespans, more
pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest
telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of
chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by
the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this
chromosome.
2: Immunodeficiency
Symptoms
of an impaired immune system (like those seen in
the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to
telomere erosion through immune cells being unable
to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer
more from diseases caused by an impaired immune
system might be a result of telomere shortening
between generations.
3: Heart attacks and
strokes
Vascular disease could be caused by
cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace
themselves - a potential symptom of telomere
erosion.
4: Sperm counts
Reduction in
male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether
this is the case) may indicate severe telomere
erosion, but other causes are possible. | |
Is
this a joke? I thought you were serious up until you pasted
that ridiculous list of "evidence" for "devolution." Increased
instances of cancer and heart attacks are definitively the
result of increased average age. Calling it a problem with
"telomere erosion" is dishonest pseudo-science because
telomere erosion happens because of... age!
It's
also ludicrous to say immunodeficiency via AIDS is the result
of telomere erosion. Immunodeficiency via AIDS is the result
of... you guessed it, AIDS! The virus kills our immune
system. It wouldn't matter how long our telomeres lasted --
AIDS makes death inevitable without proper
treatment.
Furthermore, evolution works so long as the
population can continue to reproduce. It doesn't matter if
all of us suffer dropped sperm counts, cancer, and
heart attacks the very moment we conceive children because
once we've passed on our genes, we've succeeded.
Salmon
always die right after they reproduce. That is not evidence of
"devolution" by any means. On the contrary, salmon have been
very successful through that reproductive method.
(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/17/2008 at 12:14
AM).
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM
on September 17, 2008 :
No.
"De-evolution" or "devolution" implies that the
state of the population is degrading or going
'backwards". Returning to a previous genetic state
is not the same thing. So long as a species is
able to propagate and avoid extinction through
reproduction and genetic change, it is evolving
completely regardless of what it's evolving into.
When you attach direction to evolution, you're
misunderstanding what evolution means. | |
But
if that genetic change results in a species being less adapted
to its environment then the previous state, doesn't that imply
that it has reduced its fitness? let's say I take a chicken,
mutate its controller gene to stay on to result in a larger
more dinosaur like mouth that fundamentally restricts its diet
and slows down its growth, hasn't the creature devolved for
the moment?
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 12:28 AM on September 17, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Obvious_child at 12:28 AM on
September 17, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11
AM on September 17, 2008 :
No.
"De-evolution" or "devolution" implies that the
state of the population is degrading or going
'backwards". Returning to a previous genetic
state is not the same thing. So long as a
species is able to propagate and avoid
extinction through reproduction and genetic
change, it is evolving completely regardless of
what it's evolving into. When you attach
direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding
what evolution means. | |
But
if that genetic change results in a species being
less adapted to its environment then the previous
state, doesn't that imply that it has reduced its
fitness? let's say I take a chicken, mutate its
controller gene to stay on to result in a larger
more dinosaur like mouth that fundamentally
restricts its diet and slows down its growth,
hasn't the creature devolved for the
moment?
| |
Well,
only if it's taken out of the domestic environment. As it
stands the chicken would seem to be perfectly suited for its
environment. Of course, that's not natural selection, so it's
a stretch calling it evolution and/or devolution in the first
place.
Anyway, the concept of de-evolution is a
misnomer. By definition, evolution is the change of a
population to better suit its environment in order to avoid
extinction. No matter how inefficient or crappy we might think
a production of evolution is, if evolution manages to work
around extinction, it's doing its job. Assuming the
environment stays the same, it's not really possible for a
specie to evolve in a way that would make it less-suited for
its own environment. We already have a word for that process.
It's called extinction.
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 02:05 AM on September 17, 2008 |
| |
wisp
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Obvious-Child, excellent post.
Regarding
shubee's indicators of human extinction...
Besides the
obvious (but smart) remarks posted by EntwickelnCollin, there
is the medicine factor.
Not only medicine does make us
live longer (hygiene and better food also do this). It also
make people that would die in nature, survive, and reproduce.
My father, for instance, would have died of
appendicitis if it wasn't for medicine. In nature i wouldn't
have been born.
The better medicine gets, the worse we
will get. But that has nothing to do with a natural process.
Some breeds of dogs can't mate on their own anymore,
females deliver cubs by cesarean, and have problems breathing
(but they look cute to some).
Take bananas (the
evolutionist's nightmare, LOL). They can't reproduce anymore
without human assistance (but they are much tastier).
And we have lots of problems, but we live longer.
In order to devolve (LOL) some trait, some natural
pressure must disappear (like having good seeds, for the
banana).
|
| |
Posts: 95 |
Posted: 12:08 PM on September 24, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on
September 16, 2008 :
Most of the evidence I
see purported for evolution I regard as evidence
for devolution.
The question must be asked,
What the hell is devolution??? | |
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.
Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on
September 16, 2008 :
It isn't a scientific
term, and if you understand how evolution works,
it doesn't make any sense. I think we have
another official sounding creationist word that
really means nothing.
| |
I
believe that the theory of devolution can be given a
mathematically precise definition. If there is a
scientifically acceptable definition of computer programs and
electronic machines being robust, then the theory of
devolution may be replaced with an equation that says, in the
mathematical limit, all forms of life are becoming less and
less robust over time.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM
on September 17, 2008 :
When you attach
direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding
what evolution means.
| |
I
believe it's clear that many prominent evolutionists assign a
direction to evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.
The
theory of devolution simply takes the opposite direction.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM
on September 17, 2008 :
"Telomere erosion"
is dishonest pseudo-science because telomere
erosion happens because of... age!
| |
Are
you certain that I can't adopt the evidence for Reinhard
Stindl's theory as support for my second postulate? Are you
implying that Reinhard Stindl has not published his theory in
peer-reviewed scientific literature?
According to Reinhard Stindl, of the
Institute of Medical Biology in Vienna, the answer
to this question could lie at the tips of our
chromosomes. In a controversial new theory he
suggests that all eukaryotic species (everything
except bacteria and algae) have an evolutionary
"clock" that ticks through generations, counting
down to an eventual extinction date. This clock
might help to explain some of the more puzzling
aspects of evolution, but it also overturns
current thinking and even questions the orthodoxy
of Darwin's natural selection. -Kate Ravilious, The final countdown,
guardian.co.uk.
| |
Quote from orion at 3:33 PM on September
16, 2008 :
Correct me if I'm wrong -
Quantum mechanices, and Quantum theory, have to do
with explaining processes that occur at the atomic
and sub-atomic level.
A parting of
the Red Sea all on its own (without God's
intervention) due to molecular motion of seawater
would not occur as you decribe. For one
thing, gravity would not allow it. And for
another, more fundamental reason, random molecular
motion would not allow it. You have
molecules going every which way.
| |
I
have explained the fundamental physics of quantum creation in
great detail at, Are Evolutionists Scientists? I
believe it will answer your questions.
-------
Isn't it amusing that
physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the
specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are
about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence
out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental
questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 20 |
Posted: 4:28 PM on September 27, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Shubee, where is your evidence for the
flood?
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 5:02 PM on September 27, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
| I believe it's clear that many prominent
evolutions assign a direction to evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA. | |
I
watched the entire video front to start. Nothing even remotely
touched on direction. "Adapting to avoid extinction" isn't
direction; it's survival... it either happens or it
doesn't.
| The theory of devolution simply takes the
opposite direction. | |
Not
only are you knowingly equating a scientific fallacy with a
scientific theory, but more importantly, that's not even
logically possible. Selective pressure is what causes
the widespread appearance of certain genes in populations.
There is no selective pressure to cause populations of life to
adapt in ways that would be detrimental to their current
environment. Without selective pressure, there is no evolution
of any kind, beneficial or otherwise, because no traits spread
throughout the entire population. Eroded telomeres don't count
as evidence to the contrary because they aren't inherited
traits selective pressure could even act on in the first
place.
If a species dies out due to telomere erosion,
it happened because evolution was unable to get around the
problem, not because natural selection spread harmful traits
throughout a species; by definition, it's not possible for
natural selection to do that. What you're saying is akin to
claiming that when the meteor crashed into the earth 65
million years ago, the dinosaurs specifically evolved
characteristics right there that made them more able to die
off. That's a stark contrast to the scientific
explanation: the dinosaurs simply failed to evolve around the
rapdily-changing environment in time.
Are you implying that Reinhard Stindl has
not published his theory in peer-reviewed
scientific literature?
| |
No...?
| Are you certain that I can't adopt the
evidence for Reinhard Stindl's theory as support
for my second postulate? | |
Absolutely,
and for two reasons.
First and foremost, proponents of
Dr. Stindl's conclusions have a long way to go as far as
finding evidence that human beings are getting closer to
extinction. Every single piece of "evidence for extinction"
quoted from the Guardian is inconclusive: lower sperm counts
haven't been confirmed in the first place; the other three, as
I've already explained, have much more plausible explanations
for their increased occurence in human populations, chief
among which is age. It's been known for a very long time now
that every individual's telomeres shorten with age as their
own body's cells reproduce; however, nothing you referenced
and nothing the article referenced suggests at this time that
human beings are suffering increased disease as a result of
population-wide telomere erosion. Finally, let's say
population-wide telomere erosion is causing all these
problems. Guess what? It doesn't matter. Most instances of
cancer and immunodeficiency happen after the victim has
passed their reproductive ages; we wouldn't be in danger of
extinction for quite a long time.
That brings us to the
second reason. We could ignore everything I just said in the
above paragraph, and your argument still falls flat on its
face. Even if population-wide telomere erosion threatened
human beings to extinction, none of it would be
evidence of "devolution". Devolution is a contradiction in
terms. It can no more occur than can a boulder that has mass
and no mass at the same time. A failure of a population to
evolve in time is not the same thing as
devolution.
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 7:26 PM on September 27, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 10:03 PM on
September 27, 2008 :
You agree that
evolutionists readily admit to ancient
catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists
teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact.
What is the most indisputable fact you know that
prevents all these multiple mega-floods and
fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous
events?
| |
Because
there's no evidence of it?
I see you still haven't
responded to the refutation of your claim that the fossil
record supports a global flood.
Where is your
evidence for the flood?
Or do you not have
any?
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 10:19 PM on September 27, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 7:26 PM
on September 27, 2008 :
I
watched the entire video front to start. Nothing
even remotely touched on direction. | |
It's
hard for me to believe that you didn't notice any direction to
the evolution.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 7:26 PM
on September 27, 2008 :
Not only are you
knowingly equating a scientific fallacy with a
scientific theory, but more importantly, that's
not even logically possible. | |
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.
Please note that terrific title and the first line of
the article that follows it: "In fact, natural selection often
leads to ever greater simplicity."
In the main body of
the article, also note that it admits some rather startling
evidence: "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.
-------
Isn't it amusing that
physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the
specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are
about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence
out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental
questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 20 |
Posted: 11:54 PM on September 27, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
It's hard for me to believe that you
didn't notice any direction to the evolution.
| |
The
video showed nothing but evolution's splendid ability to get
life forms out of a pinch. Life doesn't evolve for the sake of
getting somewhere; it evolves to avoid extinction. You can no
more derive direction from looking at a life form's
evolutionary past than you can by looking at the random route
a robber took while being chased by the police.
In the main body of the article, also
note that it admits some rather startling
evidence: "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." | |
Why
is the occurrence of evolution so startling to the theory of
evolution? Complexity is a non-issue. I already explained to
you that evolution will do whatever is beneficial for the
population. If that means the population loses complexity, so
be it. In this case, it was beneficial to the survival of the
sea urchins and star fish to lose their nervous systems. If it
was "devolution" they wouldn't be here anymore. Instead it's a
textbook example of random mutation + natural selection
yielding a product that is better suited to its
environment than it was before.
This is only proof of
what I said in my last post: that evolution has no direction.
If evolution did have direction, we wouldn't see
examples of evolution towards both more and less complex life
forms.
I gather this difficulty you're having here is
due to your continued confusion over what devolution actually
means. "Devolution" isn't the process of life forms becoming
less complex. It's the process of life forms evolving
specifically in order to become extinct, which is an oxymoron
by virtue of the fact that life can only evolve away
from extinction. It's like steering out of the way of an
incoming truck in order to hit the truck -- it doesn't
logically compute.
| 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. | |
Apparently
the fact that only single-celled organisms are found in the
oldest fossil beds means nothing to you.
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 12:58 AM on September 28, 2008 |
| |
wisp
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
When i play with GenePool (a neat program that can
be downloaded for free at www.swimbots.com ) i try to force
the evolution of my critters towards smarter and more complex
beings.
If i let them by themselves they often grow in
simplicity, towards a highly energy-efficient stupid worm.
They aren't very good at finding food, but since they travel
so well using so little energy they eventually find food
before dying of starvation.
I have to tweak ecology
(besides manually killing lots of worms) so that the advantage
of being energy-efficient is smaller than the advantage of
being smart. (My being there killing bugs i dislike is a great
selective pressure.)
A brain is something that
consumes lots of energy. If evolution finds a way to make
individuals eat and mate without thinking too much about it,
the brain will get smaller, every time (anyway i really doubt
that the ancestors of the starfish ever had a brain).
That wasn't our case (fortunately). Nature was hard on
us.
Since we never had a loving god that provided us
or made things easy for us (fortunately), we have to think in
order to avoid starvation, freezing, becoming food, and
getting sick. The better thinkers had a clear advantage. Their
descendants mastered the secret of fire, tools, written
language and credit cards.
Today everything is easy.
So we reached a stalemate in evolution. Especially if medicine
keeps improving and we keep avoiding genetic engineering.
Perhaps it's like i've said in the thread "Creationism
challenged!Dare u?". Creationists acknowledge "evolution", but
simply focus on cases that seem ugly to them, and call it
"devolution".
Creationists have a remarkable tendency
of being very picky on their examples. And even then, their
best examples of "devolution" are just normal cases of what we
call "evolution".
|
| |
Posts: 95 |
Posted: 10:35 AM on September 28, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 10:26 PM on
September 27, 2008 :
I agree that it's
all very mysterious | |
No,
it's not. You claimed the fossil record supported the flood.
Where is your evidence?
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 6:50 PM on September 28, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Obvious_child at 6:50 PM on
September 28, 2008 :
You claimed the fossil
record supported the flood. Where is your
evidence? | |
Understand
first that there might be evidence for an exceptional event
and then there is undeniable evidence of the truly miraculous.
To illustrate that contrast, one scientist said to another,
"Of course you forget, Peter, I was present at an undersea,
unexplained, mass sponge migration." The response was, 'big deal.' "Ray, the sponges
migrated about a foot and a half."
The evidence that I
have in support of a global flood is truly marvelous,
exquisite and compelling. Let's talk about the many enormous
burial sites that consist of unimaginably large quantities of
plant biomass residue and the graveyards of fantastically
many, densely packed fossilized remains of assorted animals.
Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost 100
times more massive than living plant biomass (Poldervaart 1955; Ricklefs
1993). That's a highly relevant calculation. It's easy to
conceptualize a pre-flood Eden-like world with 100 times the
living plant biomass that exists today. The truly
insurmountable problem is in trying to imagine a gradual,
non-catastrophic process today that is on its way toward
producing vast quantities of oil, gas and coal in highly
concentrated pockets of the earth's crust.
The
distribution of fantastic amounts of plant biomass residue in
widely separated pockets on a continually changing planet is
very strange. The existence of immense animal graveyards seems
to be a remarkably similar phenomenon and equally mysterious.
Can you explain the enormous graveyards of fossilized animals
where the bones are found tightly packed and jumbled
together?
For one such burial site, consider the
Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic) in the western United
States.
This formation has an average thickness of
100m (300 ft) and extends well over 1,000,000
square km (about 700,000 square miles), being
found from Canada to Texas, the Dakotas to Idaho
and Arizona to Oklahoma. It is known as one
of the world’s richest sources of dinosaur
fossils, but also contains fossil fish, frogs,
salamanders, lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs,
dinosaur eggs, and shrew- to rat-sized mammals.
The dinosaur bones occur in the middle green
siltstone beds and in the lower sandstones of the
Morrison Formation, often in graveyards composed
of densely packed bones.
The Morrison
Formation preserved the remains of millions of
very large plant-eating dinosaurs as well as very
large meat-eating dinosaurs ... but hardly any
plant fossils.
It seems like such massive
and concentrated burial grounds as are found in
the Morrison Formation ... are best explained by
very large catastrophic flooding events with
massive sorting and transport ...--Sean D. Pitman,
The Fossil Record.
| |
There
seems to be many unimaginably large animal graveyards that
demonstrate that the rapid burial of large animal populations
is widespread. How do theorists explain it? Robert Broom, the
South African paleontologist, estimated there are eight
hundred billion skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karroo
formation. --Adequacy of the Fossil Record, Norman D. Newall,
Journal of Paleontology, vol. 33 (May 1959, p. 492).
| Compared with any other fossil deposit in
the world the Karroo must be regarded as
phenomenally rich. Our fossil beds cover an area
of about 200,000 square miles in almost any area
of which fossils may be found. Some areas are
rather poor; others are extremely rich. Great
areas are covered by wind-blown dust, and
vegetation; and as a rule it is only in water
courses, and on slopes that fossils can be seen. I
estimate that there are lying today exposed to
view the fossil remains of five animals on average
in every square mile. In some areas there are 100;
in some none. For every fossil that is exposed to
view there must be a 1,000 hidden by dust and
talus. If there are the remains of 1,000 animals
on the shale surface on an average in every square
mile, there would be in the Karroo, if the
wind-blown sand and dust could be removed,
200,000,000 fossil animals exposed to view. The
fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some
areas they must be 4,000-5,000 feet thick; in
others perhaps only 2,000 feet. It would be a very
conservative estimate that would put the average
thickness at 2,000 feet, and at every few inches
we have another page of the book, and another
series of fossils to be revealed. I thus estimate
that in the whole Karroo formation there are
preserved the fossil remains of at least
800,000,000,000 animals. --Broom, R., The
Mammal-like Reptiles of South Africa, H.F.G.
Witherby, London, p. 309, 1932. | |
| Broom is not the only person to remark upon
the extraordinary abundance of fossils in the
Karroo formation. The paleontologist Edwin H.
Colbert, in his A Fossil-Hunter's Notebook
[Dutton, 1980, pp.163-4], writes "...in the
Karroo... it seemed that everywhere we went we
found fossils. All of which is some indication as
to the abundance of fossil reptiles in the Karroo
beds. I have never seen anything to equal the
numbers of fossil vertebrates in the Karroo,
except perhaps the prolific occurrences of
Oligocene mammals in the White River Badlands of
South Dakota. Wherever one goes in the Karroo
there is a feeling of fossil reptiles at one's
feet — and more often than not the fossils are
nearby..." | |
Where
in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits
being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge
and ancient oil and coal deposits that now exist? Also, please
tell me where animal graveyards of immense size are currently
forming. If fantastic numbers of animals were ever
mysteriously drawn to specific locations that became immense
graveyards of fossilized skeletons and densely packed bones,
please explain the mechanism.
-------
Isn't
it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently
about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that
they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into
existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about
fundamental questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 20 |
Posted: 1:59 PM on October 15, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
| There seems to be many unimaginably large
animal graveyards that demonstrate that the rapid
burial of large animal populations is widespread.
How do theorists explain it? Robert Broom, the
South African paleontologist, estimated there are
eight hundred billion skeletons of vertebrate
animals in the Karroo formation. --Adequacy of the
Fossil Record, Norman D. Newall, Journal of
Paleontology, vol. 33 (May 1959, p. 492). | |
Wow.
That's a lot of vertebrates. You think they died in timely
proximity to one another? 800 billion of them?
Seriously?
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 2:24 PM on October 15, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 4:57 PM on October
15, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 2:24 PM
on October 15, 2008 :
Wow. That's a
lot of vertebrates. You think they died in
timely proximity to one another? 800 billion of
them? Seriously? | |
Please
understand that paleontology isn't a science.
There is nothing resembling science in the
estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.
Paleontology is more like stamp
collecting. The real problem with the
creation-evolution debate is that Darwinists defer
to non-scientists. Darwinists have no idea where
they truly rank in the pecking order established
by science.
Paleontology doesn't rank much
higher than the art of stamp collecting.
Darwinianism isn't science.
"Biologists think they are
biochemists,
Biochemists think they are
Physical Chemists,
Physical Chemists think they
are Physicists,
Physicists think they are
gods,
And God thinks he is a
Mathematician."
When science is working
correctly, "physicists defer only to
mathematicians, and mathematicians defer only to
God."
David Hilbert's
Philosophy of Physics is the highest and
purest form of science ever conceptualized by the
human mind.
When compared to any true
science, Darwinism is just an anecdote. See The Incorrigible Dr.
Berlinski.
| |
This
wasn't exactly the response I was looking for. We can talk
about your attempt to redefine science later; for now I'd like
you to try answering the question I had for you. Heck, let's
go right ahead and stipulate that paleontologists are "stamp
collectors" of the fossilized variety... This means you've got
a rather inordinate amount of fossilized stamps to account for
in a given area of earth. You seem to be saying that all these
fossils got there as a result of a flood that occurred in the
time span of less than one life time. I'd like you to take a
shot at explaining how so many life forms could have possibly
been living in such an area at the same time. The problem is
that our villainous pseudo scientists aka Professional Stamp
Collectors have found an awful lot of stamps in a place where
they shouldn't have if all these stamps were placed there by a
single flood. There isn't enough room for so many creatures to
even stand there in the first place, much less live off the
land. How were they supposed to have been alive at the same
time, allowing for the flood to have killed them at the same
time?
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 5:34 PM on October 15, 2008 |
| |
0112358132134
|
| |
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
There is nothing resembling science in the
estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.
Well lets
see. The dinosaurs dying out 65million years
ago?
Paleontology doesn't rank much higher than
the art of stamp collecting.
That is simply
stupid. Paleontology is the classification and discovery
of fossils etc. from past life.
If you want to say
paleontology isn't science, STOP USING YOU'RE FOSSIL RECORD
ARGUMENT (not that it's much of an argument) It is
hypocritical and makes you look like an
idiot.
"Biologists think they are
biochemists,
Biochemists think they are Physical
Chemists,
Physical Chemists think they are
Physicists,
Physicists think they are gods,
And God
thinks he is a Mathematician."
This is
irrelevant, and is based on opinion.
I watched all
of the David Berlinski clips. He DOES NOT EVER endorse
the "theory" of creation. He does bring up some
interesting points. None of which provide evidence for
creation. He doesn't even disprove the theory of
evolution. He simply shows some holes in the theory.
No one ever said it was perfect, it is simply the best
theory out that at the moment. Personally it makes sense
to me, and i doubt it will do anything but gather more
and more evidence. But that isn't to say it couldn't be
dis-proven in 10 years. EVEN IF it is, it will not point
towards creation, because it is completely unscientific and
there is ABSOLUTELY NO credible evidence for it whatsoever.
As to your "theory" of devolution, it is ridiculous.
In order for an entire species to grow LESS fit for it's
environment, it would have to be less likely to reproduce
successfully, and still spread it's genes through an entire
population. This is logically impossible. Being
less likely to reproduce to the point of extinction, does not
allow for enough reproduction to affect the entire
populous.
-------
“It is
impossible for any number which is a power greater than the
second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a
truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this
margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de
Fermat |
| |
Posts: 37 |
Posted: 6:08 PM on October 15, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 1:59 PM on October
15, 2008 :
and the graveyards of
fantastically many, densely packed fossilized
remains of assorted animals. | |
Let's
see if you even understand what the hell you are talking
about.
| Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are
almost 100 times more massive than living plant
biomass (Poldervaart 1955;
Ricklefs 1993). That's a highly relevant
calculation. It's easy to conceptualize a
pre-flood Eden-like world with 100 times the
living plant biomass that exists today. | |
Come
again? All that proves is that plants lived and died in the
same areas and coal was produced from long periods of
pressure. Furthermore, your argument is insane. For 100x the
living plant biomass to exist during one period then today
would require significently raised levels of Co2 as well as
massive amounts of nutrients in the soil. While that COULD
have occurred, it did not 6,000 years ago. The last time we
saw such massive greenery was during the Carboniferous. That
was not 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, the flood fails to
explain where all of that Co2 went. For plants to have grown
to such levels, they need large amounts of Co2 to
photosynthesize. Without it, they cannot grow.
| The truly insurmountable problem is in
trying to imagine a gradual, non-catastrophic
process today that is on its way toward producing
vast quantities of oil, gas and coal in highly
concentrated pockets of the earth's crust. | |
Not
at all. In fact, Chevron and Exxon employ hundreds if not
thousands of geologists who have studied evolutionary biology
to find deposits based on evolution and an old Earth. A flood
does not explain the necessary pressure to create coal
quickly. Nor does it explain why hydrocarbons are found
primarily in certain areas at certain depths based on specific
geological conditions. A flood would have evenly left plant
matter all over the world.
| The distribution of fantastic amounts of
plant biomass residue in widely separated pockets
on a continually changing planet is very
strange. | |
No
it's not. What is strange is why, if a flood occurred, why we
don't have hydrocarbon deposits everywhere. Large amounts of
plant biomass in areas we know had large forests and swamps is
pretty mundane and predictable. A region of the plant that has
had massive swamps for thousands of years results in large
amounts of coal. That isn't surprising at all. what is strange
is why a flood would have deposited them in specific areas
rather then depositing them according to fluid mechanics and
hydrodynamics. Your argument directly contridicts
physics.
| The existence of immense animal graveyards
seems to be a remarkably similar phenomenon and
equally mysterious. Can you explain the enormous
graveyards of fossilized animals where the bones
are found tightly packed and jumbled
together? | |
Because
certain animals go to central places to die. Elephant
graveyards for example. Furthermore, tar pits have been
killing creatures for millions of years. A flood, however,
would have hydrologically sorted animals based on fluid
mechanics and would have done so evenly across the planet.
Tell me why we do not see similar sized and massed mammals in
the same layer with similar sized and massed dinosaurs from
different eras.
Again, your argument directly
contridicts the physics you can test in your kitchen sink.
| It seems like such massive and concentrated
burial grounds as are found in the Morrison
Formation ... are best explained by very large
catastrophic flooding events with massive sorting
and transport ...--Sean D. Pitman, The Fossil Record.
| |
Except
that it doesn't. The formation has fossils of species that
lived together. That is exactly what evolution predicts. What
you fail to notice is that the foundation does not include
species that did not live together. We do NOT see large
mammals in the formation along with large reptiles.
Furthermore, the formation has different massed organisms in
the same layer. That is contradictory to fluid mechanics. A
giant flood would sort based on mass and size. What we see in
the formation is layers by age, not by mass and size. I don't
think you know a single thing about physics.
| There seems to be many unimaginably large
animal graveyards that demonstrate that the rapid
burial of large animal populations is
widespread. | |
Aside
from the fundamental rejection of physics. The same kind you
can test in your kitchen. Along with the lack of fossils from
eras that differ by the millions.
| Where in the present do you see fantastic
oil and coal deposits being created that compare
in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient
oil and coal deposits that now exist? | |
Foolish.
Montana is pretty oil free. We do find large amounts of oil in
places where diatoms lived. And we find large amounts of coal
in places where ancient forests and swamps were. Furthermore,
areas of large amounts of oil are relatively fossil poor,
Indonesia for example. Mexico has few fossils yet has large
amounts of oil.
Come back when you understand
physics.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 9:34 PM on October 15, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from 0112358132134 at 11:43 PM on
October 15, 2008 :
Quote from Obvious_child at 9:34 PM on
October 15, 2008 :
Come back when
you understand physics.
| |
Let's
start with understanding LOGIC.
| |
Ouch.
I brought up the issue of fluid mechanics the first time and
our resident whack didn't want to deal with it.
But
then again, creationists have no problem ignoring the laws of
physics which they can test themselves.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 01:08 AM on October 16, 2008 |
| |
ImaAtheistNow
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 4:57 PM on October
15, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 2:24 PM
on October 15, 2008 :
Wow. That's a
lot of vertebrates. You think they died in
timely proximity to one another? 800 billion of
them? Seriously? | |
Please
understand that paleontology isn't a science.
There is nothing resembling science in the
estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.
| |
Um,
what am I missing.
It was YOUR source Shubee that
listed 800 billion vertebrates. If you aren't willing to
defend YOUR OWN QUOTED MATERIAL, then why in the world are
quoting them????
|
| |
Posts: 41 |
Posted: 05:44 AM on October 16, 2008 |
| |
ImaAtheistNow
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
| Quote from Shubee at 2:16 PM on
September 16, 2008 :Human telomeres are
already relatively short. Are we likely to become
extinct soon? | |
Um,
the shortening of telomeres occurs in EACH INDIVIDUAL'S BODY
CELLS AS THEY CONTINUE TO DIVIDE - THAT IS, AS S/HE
AGES.
Telomerase is the enzyme that maintains telomere
length. It is not expressed in our somatic cells, but it
is in our germ cells.
Thus, your telomeres
started off at the same length as your mother's telomeres.
And your mother's telomeres started off at the same
length as her mother's telomeres, which started off at the
same length as her mother's, which started off at the same
length as her mother's, which started off ...
|
| |
Posts: 41 |
Posted: 05:55 AM on October 16, 2008 |
| |
ImaAtheistNow
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 2:16 PM on
September 16, 2008 :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).
| |
What?
Creationists
claim that it's impossible for a single cell to have popped
into existence.
But you're going to say to hell
with them and overshoot that astronomically and propose
something that is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more
improbable - a complete human popping into existence.
I
would think that even Creationists would just mock the hell
out of this.
|
| |
Posts: 41 |
Posted: 06:04 AM on October 16, 2008 |
| |
0112358132134
|
| |
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Shubee,
i have to ask if you got your "theory" for devolution from the
movie "Idiocracy."
Besides being logically impossible,
there is absolutely NO reliable evidence for
it.
Regarding a global flood, IF we were to ignore the
fact that THIS flood defied fluid mechanics, and that, lasting
only 40 days, would not have deposited creatures in layers
millions of years apart, it still begs the question:
where did all the water go? It rained down enough to
flood the ENTIRE planet, and then...disappeared? It
couldn't have soaked into the earth, there would be too much
water to do that, and even if it did, it wouldn't have
happened all at once at the end of 40 days. Please give
us some real evidence, not just making up some bullshit about
the fossil record or quantum mechanics, neither of which you
have an knowledge in.
-------
“It is impossible
for any number which is a power greater than the second to be
written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous
demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too
narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat |
| |
Posts: 37 |
Posted: 09:49 AM on October 16, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 1:51 PM on October
16, 2008 :
Your presupposition doesn't
follow from any physical evidence or anything I've
said. | |
That's
due to the lack of any evidence your argument has. You have
twice ignored physics to suit your truly asinine belief.
| It's impossible to infer where all those
vertebrate animals were at the beginning of the
flood from my three axioms. I, in fact, believe
that powerful waves and currents transported all
the drowned Karroo animals to their present
location. | |
Really?
Seriously? Explain to me how that would work. How water could
intelligently sort organisms based on specific species in
specific areas without sorting other similar sized and massed
organisms in the same place and from different eras.
You are sounding like you are making a joke. No one
can be that stupid.
| The Great Flood axiom requires fantastic
physical displacements, up to and exceeding
complete liquefaction of at least the top 5 miles
of all of the continental surfaces of the Earth.
The amount of energy required to cause such
planet-wide liquefaction must be taken into
account. | |
Why
is there no evidence of this then? Furthermore, to create huge
mountains between the flood and now would have required
massive geological action resulting in massive amounts of
heat.
The #1 problem creationists have is heat and
none of them have any clue about how to deal with it.
Just because physics blows holes in your argument
doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't
exist.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 3:19 PM on October 16, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Obvious_child at 3:19 PM on
October 16, 2008 :
How water could
intelligently sort organisms based on specific
species in specific areas without sorting other
similar sized and massed organisms in the same
place and from different eras. | |
One
likely possibility is a fantastic quantum improbability. If
fast and slow moving water molecules can be separated and
prevented from mixing, then the same trick can be applied to
the random forces in turbulent water flow on specific objects.
This all easily follows from the first axiom of quantum
creationism.
I have already illustrated the
fundamental physics of my first axiom. Since it appears that
the implications of the opening post were not understood, I
will be happy to provide more details now. I'll also share how
I came to understand the fundamentals of quantum improbability
theory.
Quantum improbability is the mathematical
proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum
theory. The fundamentals of this physical theory are easy to
understand. 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:
When the
clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the
same chair she was sitting in before she went into
the dining room.
'Holy entropy!' her father
shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins'
highball. 'It's boiling!'
The liquid in the
glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles,
and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward
the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however,
that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively
small area around the ice cube. The rest of the
drink was still quite cold.
‘Think of it!'
went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice.
‘Here I was telling you about statistical
fluctuations in the law of entropy when we
actually see one! By some incredible chance,
possibly for the first time since the earth began,
the faster molecules have all grouped themselves
accidentally on one part of the surface of the
water and the water has begun to boil by
itself!
In the billions of years to come,
we will still, probably, be the only people who
ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary
phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now
slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he
breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing.
She did not care to argue with father, but this
time she felt sure she knew better than he. | |
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:
| In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek
θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις,
dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the
transformation of energy into different forms and
its relation to macroscopic variables such as
temperature, pressure, and volume. Its
underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions
of the collective motion of particles from their
microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical
thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics.
-- Thermodynamics. | |
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:
| Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is
an approach to thermodynamics situated upon
statistical mechanics, which focuses on the
derivation of macroscopic results from first
principles. ... The statistical approach is to
derive all macroscopic properties (temperature,
volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the
properties of moving constituent particles and the
interactions between them (including quantum
phenomena). -- Thermodynamics.
| |
I
do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics
because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all
natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.
| Thermodynamics defines the statistical
behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose
exact behavior is given by more specific laws.
Since the fundamental laws of physics are all
time-reversible, it can be argued that the
irreversibility of thermodynamics must be
statistical in nature, that is, that it must be
merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a
system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility | |
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:
Dr. Egon
Spengler: There's something very important I
forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman:
What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the
streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon
Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman:
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you
mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine
all life as you know it ceasing instantaneously
and every molecule in your body exploding at the
speed of light.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic
reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad.
Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks,
Egon. | |
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.
Before the rage and
ridicule of my detractors escalates to higher levels, I wish
to make clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the
opinions of the general physics community in regard to quantum
improbability 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:
The Infinite Improbability Drive is a
wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar
distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without
all that tedious mucking about in
hyperspace.
... The principle of generating
small amounts of finite improbability were
of course well understood — and such generators
were often used to break the ice at parties by
making all the molecules in the hostess's
undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the
left, in accordance with the Theory of
Indeterminacy.
Many respectable physicists
said that they weren't going to stand for this —
partly because it was a debasement of science, but
mostly because they didn't get invited to those
sort of parties. — Douglas Adams, The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).
| |
It
all boils down to a debate between physicists and
mathematicians. 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.
Quote from Obvious_child at 3:19 PM on
October 16, 2008 :
To create huge
mountains between the flood and now would have
required massive geological action resulting in
massive amounts of heat. | |
That's
correct. It's all an elementary exercise in quantum
improbability theory.
Quote from Obvious_child at 3:19 PM on
October 16, 2008 :
You are sounding
like you are making a joke. No one can be that
stupid. | |
The
real surprise to me is that you felt qualified to respond to
this thread without the slightest understanding of the opening
post.
"It startled him even more when 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 smart-ass." — The Inventor of the
Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy.
-------
Isn't it amusing that
physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the
specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are
about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence
out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental
questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 20 |
Posted: 12:14 PM on October 17, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
| One likely possibility is a fantastic
quantum improbability. | |
He's
not being serious anymore. That's not to suggest he
necessarily ever was being serious, but the gig's up
when they start equating "likely possibility" with "fantastic
improbability".
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 12:39 PM on October 17, 2008 |
| |
wisp
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
It wouldn't be a theory anyway. A proper theory
should give the easiest explanation of what we observe, and
allow predictions.
Besides, the unlikeliness of any of
those things to happen would make it easier to theorize a
Matrix-like reality. A group of machines using us (instead of,
say, cows, or even lobotomized humans, to avoid difficulties)
as batteries and projecting into our brains magic events,
including a Red Sea partition.
Inf fact ANYTHING
(literally) is more likely than an infinite being intervening
in our affairs (let alone creating us).
If your
theory is about an intelligeht being creating life using
quantum improbabilities, it would be much easier just to stop
the laws of phisics. Seriously.
If it's about things
happening by chance, then it shouldn't be called
"creationism".
Nevermind if those things "can" happen.
It can't be our first (or second, or third, or anythingth)
theory about anything. Thus it's not worth mentioning.
"Not worth mentioning" is far more compelling than
"impossible".
|
| |
Posts: 95 |
Posted: 5:26 PM on October 17, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:39 PM
on October 17, 2008 :
| One likely possibility is a fantastic
quantum improbability. | |
He's
not being serious anymore. That's not to suggest
he necessarily ever was being serious, but
the gig's up when they start equating "likely
possibility" with "fantastic improbability".
| |
Agreed.
Shubee 's just doing this for kicks and giggles.
The
sheer ridiculousness of his posts is beyond measurability.
I love how his argument has come down to relying on
extremely remote possibilities of violations of the greater
body of physics that results in his desired outcome yet leaves
absolutely no evidence to support it.
However, there
is a possibility he's actually serious, but like most
creationists to stupid to understand what he's saying or for
that matter what anyone else is saying.
Has he even
begun to address the problem of hydrological sorting based on
actual physics?
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on
October 17, 2008 :
The sheer
ridiculousness of his posts is beyond
measurability. | |
You
obviously do not understand them or even the debate topic.
What does the subject line (Rethinking Creationism - Is It
Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?)
mean to you?
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on
October 17, 2008 :
I love how his
argument has come down to relying on extremely
remote possibilities | |
My
argument didn't descend down to quantum improbability theory.
The QIT axiom was present in the opening post.
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on
October 17, 2008 :
violations of the
greater body of physics | |
If
you disagree with the physics I quoted from Wikipedia, you
should become an editor and overturn the prevailing consensus.
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on
October 17, 2008 :
that results in his
desired outcome | |
The
debate is if quantum creationism is science. The suspicion
that I might believe in a God that plays dice with the
universe and cheats is irrelevant. It's clear from physics
alone that quantum improbability theory allows for quantum
miracles.
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on
October 17, 2008 :
yet leaves
absolutely no evidence to support it. | |
The
meaning of quantum improbability theory, the first axiom, is
just beginning to dawn on you and you have shown no
understanding of the second. Is my second axiom false because
of semantics alone, as alleged by some of my critics, or is
the theory of devolution just another area for which you are
not qualified to speak?
As I see it, there is no point
for me to discuss a test for my third axiom with someone who
clearly doesn't understand quantum creationism.
Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on
October 17, 2008 :
However, there is a
possibility he's actually serious, but like most
creationists to stupid to understand what he's
saying or for that matter what anyone else is
saying.
Has he even begun to address the
problem of hydrological sorting based on actual
physics? | |
By
not seeing how easily I have demolished your argument on
hydrological sorting, you have clearly demonstrated not
understanding quantum improbability theory at the high school
level.
-------
Isn't it amusing that
physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the
specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are
about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence
out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental
questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 20 |
Posted: 07:49 AM on October 18, 2008 |
| |
| Multiple pages for this
topic [ 1 2
] |
| |
