What's Wrong With Creationism?

by **soul_biscuit** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:21 pm

Shubee wrote:Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

It is fine to accept that it is possible, but to conclude that it happened takes evidence.

Where's the evidence against it?

That's not how it works. If you're claiming that the world popped into being due to a massively improbable bout of quantum strangeness, then the onus is on you to provide evidence. I'm not doubting the possiblity of it happening, I'm doubting that it happened, particularly since much more plausible and evidentially supported explanations are in place.

What if I doubt a few of the fundamental presuppositions that you use to interpret physical evidence?

Then you'd better have a good reason for doubting them. Hopefully something founded in evidence.

Doesn't that make your belief system weaker than mine and my reduced axiom set logically stronger and more certain?

Um, why would it? Couldn't it also mean that mine is stronger than yours, because you rejected a perfectly good axiom for no good reason?

By the way, the only axiom required for scientific investigation is that the universe obeys natural laws that are amenable to reason. If you reject that, you reject the entire foundation of science.

by **articulett** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:31 pm

Shubee, you've presumed that faith and feelings are a means of knowledge. You've presumed that if you don't understand something, your preachers and invisible friend do. How gullible.

That is anti-science--

It's the confirmation bias that all superstitions and faith use to make believers feel like the "know" something real or true. But your original premise is wrong. Faith, feelings, scriptures, etc. have never been demonstrated to be a means of knowing anything verifiable. You are using the same methods to convince yourself that the believers of the Quo'ran use and believers in all sorts of crazy things use! None of these "divine truths" have ever been demonstrated to come from an omnipotent outside source--in fact there is no evidence of anything "divine"--there is NO EVIDENCE that you or anyone has "divine knowledge". Get it?? You are as crazy to us as all those Scientologists and Muslims and rain dancers that you think of as crazy and misguided!! Your feelings on the subject are evidence of just how thoroughly brainwashed you are-- it's not evidence of anything objectively true! There is no evidence that anything supernatural has ever happened nor that it ever will. And you came here pretending to know and understand science-- and yet you just know and understand the bits and pieces you need to sell your lie to yourself.

You've inserted your beliefs into gaps in your knowledge and into your areas of ignorance just like eons of humans that have come before. And when people attempt to correct your errors you call THEM ignorant and blind. You question (or ignore) those who could give you evidence that you could verify for yourself while exalting and trusting those who have been filling your head with magical thinking crap --and the book that they told you was inspired by the invisible creator of the universe. (If an entity is invisible, immeasurable, and indistinguishable from a delusion, then I don't think the bible writers could "know" what some god said any more than you could!) Just like Kleinman and most creationists, you've used snippets of science, pseudoscience, and spin to try and build a case for some nebulous truth that you've never presented any evidence for while promoting the opposite of science.

Faith is belief without or despite evidence. That is the opposite of science. It makes people feel like they "know" "higher truths" without knowing ANYTHING at all. And it makes them so damn sure of themselves, that it's unlikely for them ever to learn the actual truth that they are missing. Creationism makes for brains that cannot recognize real, useful, verifiable information from gobbledy gook! And, on top of that, they feel compelled to inflict the gobbledy gook on others. Vomitous!

THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH CREATIONISM.

(Where is the evidence against creationism, you ask?? Exactly where the evidence against Santa Claus is... and the evidence against Scientology and Astrology and Voo doo and Phrenology and Zeus and alien anal probes... Where the hell do you think evidence is for unfalsifiable delusions? The evidence for these notions, however, are just in the minds of humans-- same as creationism. You made the claim; it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to scientists to prove to delusional people that their delusions have no basis in reality. Fail.)

by **hotshoe** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:32 pm

No no no Shubee, you're not being logical.

We don't have to prove a global negative, in fact, that can never be proved. We cannot prove that your god never cheated and played the trickster, using his magic powers to create an entire biosphere that merely appears old and merely appears to have been formed from the same naturalistic processes we observe also happening elsewhere. (You can't prove that it wasn't Izanagi and Izanami who did it, either).

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. You claim a six-day creation where life assembles itself in three days, then you have the burden of proof and you have to provide at least a shred of evidence for your claim to be credible.

Oh, and the existence of the bible is not evidence for claims that the bible stories are true, Shubee, don't forget.

by **Shubee** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:36 pm

OHSU wrote:

Shubee wrote: What if I doubt a few of the fundamental presuppositions that you use to interpret physical evidence? Doesn't that make your belief system weaker than mine and my reduced axiom set logically stronger and more certain?

Not if your doubts are illogical or unfounded.

I believe it's perfectly logical and well founded to consider all mathematically consistent possibilities, regardless of how improbable they may be.

by **articulett** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:41 pm

Yeah, shubee-- where's the evidence that faith or feelings or your magic book has ever provided us with anything that is verifiable, prescient, and true? What part could not have been written by mortals in the time it was written? Why no mention of germs and DNA and other galaxies and the fact that our sun is, but a star, amongst trillions of stars. Why no mention of deep space time???? Why? Ask your invisible savior, why don't you? Your magic man and you have a lot of explaining to do if you want to be taken more seriously than you take believers in virgin sacrifices. What makes your claims any more worthy of respect than all the nutty claims you don't ascribe to?

by **soul_biscuit** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:48 pm

Shubee wrote:I believe it's perfectly logical and well founded to consider all mathematically consistent possibilities, regardless of how improbable they may be.

We all believe that. But as you continue to refuse to acknowledge, possibilities are not enough. To establish that your quantum creation actually happened takes positive evidence.

by **hotshoe** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:57 pm

well founded to consider all mathematically consistent possibilities

So why not Xenu ?

That's a possibility ...

So why not Allah ?

That's a possibility ...

It's stupid of you to suggest that you are objectively and logically considering all the possibilities, when we know that you are not.

Of course you're not, because not even you are deluded enough to think that Xenu is an acceptable claim. Only your self delusion allows you to continue to show favoritism towards your sect's version of genesis. All the while insisting that you are merely, innocently, examining the mathematical possibilities. None so blind as he who will not see, Shubee.

by **hotshoe** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:58 pm

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:I believe it's perfectly logical and well founded to consider all mathematically consistent possibilities, regardless of how improbable they may be.

We all believe that. But as you continue to refuse to acknowledge, possibilities are not enough. To establish that your quantum creation actually happened takes positive evidence.

And to establish that "quantum creation" is actually the same as genesis-god CREATIONISM takes even more positive evidence.

Shubee's not going to be able to meet this challenge, not in my lifetime.

by **soul_biscuit** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:03 pm

hotshoe wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:I believe it's perfectly logical and well founded to consider all mathematically consistent possibilities, regardless of how improbable they may be.

We all believe that. But as you continue to refuse to acknowledge, possibilities are not enough. To establish that your quantum creation actually happened takes positive evidence.

And to establish that "quantum creation" is actually the same as genesis-god CREATIONISM takes even more positive evidence.

Shubee's not going to be able to meet this challenge, not in my lifetime.

Of course, I had overlooked that. I've left the God aspect out in my posts, and have just dealt with his claims of the world spontaneously forming. Of course he's not talking about anything spontaneous, he's talking about the deliberate actions of a God whose existence can be neither demonstrated nor disproven.

That takes him far afield of science, as has been pointed out to him quite a bit so far.

by **articulett** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:57 pm

Shubee's claim is on par with saying a missing person could have been kidnapped by aliens... or god... or Xenu. Because QM says that weird things can happen, Shubee uses this as "evidence" that the weird thing he "believes in" happened!

Anyone who was actually interested in what happened in the past, would look towards empirical evidence for the best explanation and not use QM to support the claim that "felt" the best. Creationism at it's very core is dishonest.

by **Shubee** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:20 pm

soul_biscuit wrote: I've left the God aspect out in my posts, and have just dealt with his claims of the world spontaneously forming. Of course he's not talking about anything spontaneous, he's talking about the deliberate actions of a God whose existence can be neither demonstrated nor disproven.

My critics keep insisting that the existence and agency of God is integral to what I have been calling "quantum creationism." Why should I concede to their lies when doing so would immediately disqualify quantum creationism from being a science? I have explicitly denied their irrational insistence on page 1:

Shubee wrote:As a mathematician, I see no need to assume a deity or a purposely-directed creation. For example, if a modern-day Moses was to wave his hand over the Red Sea, and if the water would divide just like in the Biblical account, I would be content to say, "Isn't that an interesting coincidence?" "The waters are dividing just like in the Bible (Exodus 14:21-22) and everything that is happening is perfectly consistent with quantum physics."

I do admit to having a religious belief but I don't see how that disqualifies quantum creationism from being a valid mathematical science.

by **soul_biscuit** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:26 pm

Shubee wrote:I do admit to having a religious belief but I don't see how that disqualifies quantum creationism from being a valid mathematical science.

Creationism is the belief that God created the heaven and the earth, so to speak. If you leave God out of it it's not creationism anymore.

That leaves aside the fact that you still have not provided any reason why anyone should entertain the idea that the Earth is a quantum fluctuation. (We know it could be, but you've given us no reason to imagine that it is.)

In fact, there's a good case to be made for your "quantum creation" being unfalsifiable, as I believe hotshoe has been pointing out. Even if you leave God out of it, it is theoretically possible for the solar system to have popped into existence in an instant in the manner to which to allude, but looking as it does now as though it were formed gradually over billions of years. How, then, can we falsify the idea? Being unfalsifiable does disqualify quantum creation from being a valid science.

by **Shubee** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:33 pm

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

It is fine to accept that it is possible, but to conclude that it happened takes evidence.

Agreed. But what if I adopt an axiom set that renders a six-day creation story as logically consistent with all currently available evidence?

by **Shubee** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:36 pm

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:I do admit to having a religious belief but I don't see how that disqualifies quantum creationism from being a valid mathematical science.

Creationism is the belief that God created the heaven and the earth, so to speak. If you leave God out of it it's not creationism anymore.

That's fine with me. How about if we call my theory, quasi-quantum creationism?

by **soul_biscuit** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:45 pm

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

It is fine to accept that it is possible, but to conclude that it happened takes evidence.

Agreed. But what if I adopt an axiom set that renders a six-day creation story as logically consistent with all currently available evidence?

It is logically consistent with all available evidence. The problem, as I explained above, is that it is consistent with any possible evidence. The evidence could suggest a world that was created last Thursday, and it could still be possible that it just happened to pop into existence in that state earlier this morning. Quantum creation is unfalsifiable, and so is not science.

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:I do admit to having a religious belief but I don't see how that disqualifies quantum creationism from being a valid mathematical science.

Creationism is the belief that God created the heaven and the earth, so to speak. If you leave God out of it it's not creationism anymore.

That's fine with me. How about if we call my theory, quasi-quantum creationism?

Call it whatever you want, as long as you don't try to call it science.

by **hotshoe** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:58 pm

Call it whatever you want, as long as you don't try to call it science.

That's the last word on the subject :mrgreen:

by **Phoebus** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:16 pm

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

It is fine to accept that it is possible, but to conclude that it happened takes evidence.

Agreed. But what if I adopt an axiom set that renders a six-day creation story as logically consistent with all currently available evidence?

That's not how it works. You look at the evidence and develop a model that fits it. Not develop a model and try to fit the evidence into it. That's what creationists do...

Oh, and when you mention the "6 day creation" you are betraying the religious undertones inherent in your argument. You know, the ones that you insist aren't there.

Edit: added afterthought

by **Weaver** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:19 pm

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:You're overlooking the possibility of a six-day quantum creation where life on earth just magically assembles itself in 3 days without God's supervision and direction. I believe that it's reasonable to classify that theory as creationism.

What you are constantly and maddeningly ignoring, Shubee, is that when an event is as incomprehensibly improbable as your "quantum creation" notions, the only reasonable conclusion is that the event never happened, unless contrary evidence is provided.

In other words, unless you have some evidence that the entire biosphere popped randomly into existence along exactly the lines proposed by Genesis, we're free to regard your ideas as ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

soul_biscuit wrote:Where's the evidence?

Where's the evidence against it? What if I doubt a few of the fundamental presuppositions that you use to interpret physical evidence? Doesn't that make your belief system weaker than mine and my reduced axiom set logically stronger and more certain?

The evidence against 6-day creationism is in the rocks, the plants, the animals. Radioisotopic decay is inconsistant with 6-day creationism. Magnetic structure of rocks is inconsistant with 6-day creationism. The Siberian and Deccan Traps are inconsistant with 6-day creationism. Fossil records clearly display progressive evolution of plant and animal life, inconsistant with 6-day creationism.

The evidence is quite solid for the ~4.5by Earth, with gradual accretion, large-scale impact event producing the Moon, evolution of life forms, etc. All of it is quite consistant, and coorelates well with current theory.

You are making outrageous claims of 6-day creationism - it is beholden upon you to provide clear evidence to support your outrageous claims. Here's a hint - the Bible isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that the Bible exists.

So once again (and don't think everyone hasn't noticed how you've ignored requests for clear evidence):

Where are the rocks created by "quantum creation"?
Where are the stars created by "quantum creation"?
Where is any evidence whatsoever?

by **Shubee** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:27 pm

soul_biscuit wrote:In fact, there's a good case to be made for your "quantum creation" being unfalsifiable, ... Even if you leave God out of it, it is theoretically possible for the solar system to have popped into existence in an instant in the manner to which to allude, but looking as it does now as though it were formed gradually over billions of years. How, then, can we falsify the idea? Being unfalsifiable does disqualify quantum creation from being a valid science.

Obviously it's not science if the observers popped into existence at the same instant the solar system did. But what if a second large moon were to suddenly appear orbiting the Earth out of nowhere?

Falsifiability (or "refutability") is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Why is this a problem? What if the theory is proven true by direct observation? How could a true and empirically confirmed theory not be science? Consequently, quasi-quantum creationism passes the falsifiability test because the condition, "if it is false" would then disappear.

Also, are you insisting that the classic big bang theory as defined by Sir Roger Penrose isn't science?

by **whippa** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:27 pm

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

It is fine to accept that it is possible, but to conclude that it happened takes evidence.

Agreed. But what if I adopt an axiom set that renders a six-day creation story as logically consistent with all currently available evidence?

The problem is that it's not consistent with available evidence. The only way anyone can force a logical sequence in that accounts for a 6 day creation of the universe would be to assume that a malevolent entity has specifically arranged the universe to deceive us into believing it is much older than it is.
Every new piece of evidence humans find point more and more conclusively towards an ancient and slowly forming cosmology after some form of explosive event. If the universe as we see it was created in some sort of Cosmic event in one six day period it would be fundamentally different. And quantum physics would look a big heap different too. Matter just doesn't spontaneously create itself on the scale you're talking about.
Ask Mr Antimatter why.
Stop trying to use physics you don't understand to give a glossy scientific look to your fantasies. Comic books are not good sources of advanced physics.

by **soul_biscuit** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:35 pm

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:In fact, there's a good case to be made for your "quantum creation" being unfalsifiable, ... Even if you leave God out of it, it is theoretically possible for the solar system to have popped into existence in an instant in the manner to which to allude, but looking as it does now as though it were formed gradually over billions of years. How, then, can we falsify the idea? Being unfalsifiable does disqualify quantum creation from being a valid science.

Obviously it's not science if the observers popped into existence at the same instant the solar system did. But what if a second large moon were to suddenly appear orbiting the Earth out of nowhere?

Then this would show that moons can suddenly appear. It would not show that the Earth itself suddenly appeared. There is no way to show that the Earth did not suddenly appear this morning.

Falsifiability (or "refutability") is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Why is this a problem? What if the theory is proven true by direct observation? How could a true and empirically confirmed theory not be science? Consequently, quasi-quantum creationism passes the falsifiability test because the condition, "if it is false" would then disappear.

I know what falsifiability means. You can't claim that your quantum creation ramblings are a true and empirically confirmed theory, however, because you have provided no evidence! Seriously, how can you imagine it to be empirically confirmed? As I've said, we all acknowledge that it's possible, but there's no way to know whether or not it happened!

Also, are you insisting that the classic big bang theory as defined by Sir Roger Penrose isn't science?

Ugh, classic big bang theory yields predictions that are testable! One of these is the cosmic background radiation.

Your theory is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it!

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is such an observation. If there is, I'm sure you can think of one.

by **Shubee** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:39 pm

whippa wrote:

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:Why is it ludicrous for a mathematician to follow David Hilbert's philosophy of physics? Obviously, I accept all logically admissible possibilities.

It is fine to accept that it is possible, but to conclude that it happened takes evidence.

Agreed. But what if I adopt an axiom set that renders a six-day creation story as logically consistent with all currently available evidence?

If the universe as we see it was created in some sort of Cosmic event in one six day period ...

That's not the creation story that I proposed.

Shubee wrote:When I mentioned the quantum creation of the earth, I was referring to the conjecture that quantum mechanical processes could transform a lifeless yet warm, water-covered planet into a paradise with birds, exotic land and sea creatures, and man, in only 6 days.

by **Shubee** on Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:02 am

soul_biscuit wrote:

Shubee wrote:Also, are you insisting that the classic big bang theory as defined by Sir Roger Penrose isn't science?

Ugh, classic big bang theory yields predictions that are testable! One of these is the cosmic background radiation.

There are reasons to believe in quantum theory too. So if it can be inferred that there is a fantastically small probability for advanced forms of life to rapidly assemble out of chaos, molecule by molecule, in 3 days, are you going to disqualify that also?

soul_biscuit wrote:Your theory is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it!

You mean like mathematics? Mathematics is consistent will all possible observations and is therefore false?

soul_biscuit wrote:But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is such an observation. If there is, I'm sure you can think of one.

Actually, I'm not impressed by that game. My definition of science is based on Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

by **Shubee** on Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:14 am

soul_biscuit wrote:You can't claim that your quantum creation ramblings are a true and empirically confirmed theory, however, because you have provided no evidence! Seriously, how can you imagine it to be empirically confirmed?

I'm content for the moment to argue for the mathematical possibility.

soul_biscuit wrote:As I've said, we all acknowledge that it's possible, but there's no way to know whether or not it happened!

I don't believe in your prophecy. You can't prove that no proof exists.

by **PJG** on Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:29 am

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:You can't claim that your quantum creation ramblings are a true and empirically confirmed theory, however, because you have provided no evidence! Seriously, how can you imagine it to be empirically confirmed?

I'm content for the moment to argue for the mathematical possibility.

soul_biscuit wrote:As I've said, we all acknowledge that it's possible, but there's no way to know whether or not it happened!

I don't believe in your prophecy. You can't prove that no proof exists.

What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

The Definition of Falsifiability

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: The Definition of Falsifiability

Re: I prefer the undeniable and indisputable

Re: The Definition of Falsifiability

Re: The Definition of Falsifiability

Re: The Definition of Falsifiability

Who is online