What's Wrong With Creationism?

by **Sir Chaos** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:28 am

Weaver wrote:Disregard.

Why? You´re making more sense in one word than Shubee in one paragraph.

by **Largenton** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:43 am

Shubee wrote:

Steve55 wrote:Please supply the quantum physics explanation.

If you have never studied measure theory and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, it would be much easier for you to first familiarize yourself with the discussions I've had with physicists and the support I've received from mathematicians. Here's a summary: http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism

Where in science does God actually have to be? Last time I checked, science studied things which can be falsifiable. I'm sure that Calli could come along with some papers by Turok which explain how the universe can happen without a creator. In fact, the Wired article is here on this website

However, the point remains that science does not need God. Your insistance that God is included in science and the inclusion of God to explain it is the problem that intelligent people have with creationism.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:11 am

DuckPhup wrote:That is utter horseshit. A highly ordered reality did NOT "suddenly materialize out of nothingness"

Then you will enjoy learning that "one of the big mysteries of the universe" is that the universe began in "an extraordinarily organized state." I said "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness." I feel your pain and understand why my words should trouble every atheist. Yet it's undeniably clear that Penrose agrees and clearly affirms that the universe began in a "highly organized" and "highly ordered" state. Please listen to the evidence and hear Sir Roger Penrose say exactly that at 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0.

by **Steve55** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:12 am

Shubee wrote:

Steve55 wrote:So what role would god play?

Belief in God would be a purely religious doctrine orthogonal to physics. I summarize this religious belief by saying that God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats.

So how can you tell?

by **Steve55** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:20 am

Shubee wrote:

Steve55 wrote:Please supply the quantum physics explanation.

If you have never studied measure theory and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, it would be much easier for you to first familiarize yourself with the discussions I've had with physicists and the support I've received from mathematicians. Here's a summary: http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism

You said

Shubee wrote:"The waters are dividing just like in the Bible (Exodus 14:21-22) and everything that is happening is perfectly consistent with quantum physics."

That link didn't refer to dividing waters. I suspect quantum physics would make a mockery of your assertion. No - I am no physicist nor a mathematician but my nearly 40 year old high school physics says quantum physics deals with the very tiny and dividing waters is in what is referred to as the "middle world" and simple Newtonian physics does a much better job. You made a bold assertion and I asked for the justification.

You didn't give it.

by **Largenton** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:33 am

Shubee wrote:

DuckPhup wrote:That is utter horseshit. A highly ordered reality did NOT "suddenly materialize out of nothingness"

Then you will enjoy learning that "one of the big mysteries of the universe" is that the universe began in "an extraordinarily organized state." I said "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness." I feel your pain and understand why my words should trouble every atheist. Yet it's undeniably clear that Penrose agrees and clearly affirms that the universe began in a "highly organized" and "highly ordered" state. Please listen to the evidence and hear Sir Roger Penrose say exactly that at 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0.

Shubee it is customary quite polite to read other posts, especially the one I did which blows a massive hole in that proposal you made.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:45 am

Largenton wrote:The point remains that science does not need God. Your insistence that God is included in science and the inclusion of God to explain it is the problem that intelligent people have with creationism.

You do not understand the meaning of "Belief in God would be a purely religious doctrine orthogonal to physics" or the main point of this conversation. I am simply adamant that "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness" (such as in the Biblical creation story) and that quantum creation is essentially creationism. I too prefer to exclude God out of science.

by **Russell** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:00 am

I, and at least one other, have asked you to show or explain how QM can explain the parting of the Red Sea. So let’s see what you actually know about QM.

In the book I mentioned Feynman gives the example of why when we shine a light at a mirror we see the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence, He shows how QED shows that contribution from most of the mirror cancels out leading to what we see in the when we measure the angles of incidence and reflection of a mirror. That’s why we don't see the strangeness at the scales of our normal experience.

Gravity is a much better force to use if you want to make a miracle on the scale of parting the Red Sea. There again gravity lacks the mystical woo-woo that you can invoke by adding “Quantum Mechanics”.

Shubee wrote: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?

God of the Gaps argument, just because we don’t know something is no reason to say “insert preferred deity here” did it.

by **Largenton** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:12 am

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:The point remains that science does not need God. Your insistence that God is included in science and the inclusion of God to explain it is the problem that intelligent people have with creationism.

You do not understand the meaning of "Belief in God would be a purely religious doctrine orthogonal to physics" or the main point of this conversation. I am simply adamant that "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness" (such as in the Biblical creation story) and that quantum creation is essentially creationism. I too prefer to exclude God out of science.

And you don't understand a few simple things. Firstly, I've shown how this is not "suddenly something out of nothing" by examining Turok's ideas. Secondly, for a definition of creationism, try here

by **PJG** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:18 am

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:The point remains that science does not need God. Your insistence that God is included in science and the inclusion of God to explain it is the problem that intelligent people have with creationism.

You do not understand the meaning of "Belief in God would be a purely religious doctrine orthogonal to physics" or the main point of this conversation. I am simply adamant that "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness" (such as in the Biblical creation story) and that quantum creation is essentially creationism. I too prefer to exclude God out of science.

Well, if you are "simply adamant" then we'll just have to agree with you won't we? The problem is that some people are "simply adamant" that a highly ordered reality can not suddenly materialize out of nothingness. I am "simply adamant" that I have never been convinced by stories of magic and, until I am, I'll go with the more reality based stuff thank you.

You sound like Robert Byers... he "insists" that marsupials are simply slightly changed placentals. Maybe you should meet?

by **Matt7895** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:20 am

PJG wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:The point remains that science does not need God. Your insistence that God is included in science and the inclusion of God to explain it is the problem that intelligent people have with creationism.

You do not understand the meaning of "Belief in God would be a purely religious doctrine orthogonal to physics" or the main point of this conversation. I am simply adamant that "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness" (such as in the Biblical creation story) and that quantum creation is essentially creationism. I too prefer to exclude God out of science.

Well, if you are "simply adamant" then we'll just have to agree with you won't we? The problem is that some people are "simply adamant" that a highly ordered reality can not suddenly materialize out of nothingness. I am "simply adamant" that I have never been convinced by stories of magic and, until I am, I'll go with the more reality based stuff thank you.

You sound like Robert Byers... he "insists" that marsupials are simply slightly changed placentals. Maybe you should meet?

Could 'quantum creation' seriously cope with that much fail in one place?

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:31 am

Russell wrote:I, and at least one other, have asked you to show or explain how QM can explain the parting of the Red Sea.

I prefer that you ask a physicist to explain how QM is consistent with the parting of the Red Sea. This particular detail wasn't contested by any physicist at the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.foundations when I introduced a debate on creationism over there. Instead, the debate quickly reduced to the absurd belief of the chief moderator who said that events of fantastically small probability can't happen. Mathematicians have ripped his non-scientific absurdity to shreds. http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism

by **Spaghetti Anyone?** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:47 am

Shubee wrote:

Rus wrote:But if a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness, then there is no reason to reject a special six-day creation account for the making of this planet.

Highly ordered reality did not "suddenly" materialize - the planet and everything on it has taken 100's of millions of years to reach a state where SOME life can exist on SOME parts of the planet SOME of the time. In fact MOST of the earth is INCAPABLE of supporting any kind of life or at the very least is hostile to life.

These are proven scientific facts - nor beliefs or mythology. If there was a divine creator he sure did a shitty job of setting up shop.

Take the fairytales elsewhere.

So Sayeth The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

by **Largenton** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:55 am

Shubee wrote:

Russell wrote:I, and at least one other, have asked you to show or explain how QM can explain the parting of the Red Sea.

I prefer that you ask a physicist to explain how QM is consistent with the parting of the Red Sea. This particular detail wasn't contested by any physicist at the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.foundations when I introduced a debate on creationism over there. Instead, the debate quickly reduced to the absurd belief of the chief moderator who said that events of fantastically small probability can't happen. Mathematicians have ripped his non-scientific absurdity to shreds. http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism

Well done, now please answer the question. If you reckon its possible and the detail is easy to do then it should be easy to explain.

by **DuckPhup** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:03 am

Shubee wrote:

DuckPhup wrote:That is utter horseshit. A highly ordered reality did NOT "suddenly materialize out of nothingness"

Then you will enjoy learning that "one of the big mysteries of the universe" is that the universe began in "an extraordinarily organized state." I said "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness." I feel your pain and understand why my words should trouble every atheist. Yet it's undeniably clear that Penrose agrees and clearly affirms that the universe began in a "highly organized" and "highly ordered" state. Please listen to the evidence and hear Sir Roger Penrose say exactly that at 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0.

You said 'highly ordered reality'... Penrose said 'highly organized state'... quite different from a 'highly ordered reality'. The way you are using the term, you are implying that objects and/or entities can pop into existence in the macrocosm... in our 'observational reality'... or that events like the (fictional) parting of the Red Sea can be explained by Quantum Mechanics. You are full of shit.

Penrose, on the other hand, was using the term strictly in the sense of thermodynamics. Penrose's 'highly organized state' has nothing to do with complexity; rather, he is describing the ultimate in simplicity.

<edit: P.S.: I'm sort of curious to see how long it will be before you are exposed as a sock puppet this time.>

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:14 am

PJG wrote:The problem is that some people are "simply adamant" that a highly ordered reality can not suddenly materialize out of nothingness.

No. The problem is that they are all ignorant of quantum physics.

Spaghetti Anyone? wrote:Highly ordered reality did not "suddenly" materialize

Don't tell me. Tell that to Sir Roger Penrose.

Spaghetti Anyone? wrote:- the planet and everything on it has taken 100's of millions of years to reach a state where SOME life can exist on SOME parts of the planet SOME of the time.

Not necessarily.

Spaghetti Anyone? wrote:These are proven scientific facts - nor beliefs or mythology.

You don't know the first thing about fundamental physics. You understand nothing about quantum mechanics.

Spaghetti Anyone? wrote:Take the fairytales elsewhere.

Labeling modern physics a fairytale isn't science.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:27 am

DuckPhup wrote: you are implying that objects and/or entities can pop into existence in the macrocosm...

I said, "a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness" and I gave an example -- the universe.

DuckPhup wrote:or that events like the (fictional) parting of the Red Sea can be explained by Quantum Mechanics.

Let physicists worry about that.

by **PJG** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:41 am

Well can physicists can explain where odd socks go?

:whisper:

This is a rhetorical question.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:46 am

Steve55 wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Steve55 wrote:Please supply the quantum physics explanation.

If you have never studied measure theory and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, it would be much easier for you to first familiarize yourself with the discussions I've had with physicists and the support I've received from mathematicians. Here's a summary: http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism

You said

Shubee wrote:"The waters are dividing just like in the Bible (Exodus 14:21-22) and everything that is happening is perfectly consistent with quantum physics."

That link didn't refer to dividing waters.

It sure does. Both links refer to the dividing of the Red Sea.

Steve55 wrote:... my nearly 40 year old high school physics says quantum physics deals with the very tiny and dividing waters is in what is referred to as the "middle world" and simple Newtonian physics does a much better job.

I can't reason with anyone that trusts their own high school level of understanding.

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:24 am

And no one can reason with a creotard.

They think they already know everything there is to know via some "divine" means.

There is no evidence that any divine thing exists nor that any sort of invisible undetectable consciousness can exist without a brain-- not gods, souls, demons, ghosts, angels, thetans. They are all cut from the same cloth as the proverbial Emperor's new Clothes. They are all equally likely to be as true as each other or any other myth or delusion humans have invented to explain that which they don't understand or manipulate others. We know humans readily make up such "entities"-- we have no evidence that any such thing even can exist. As far as all the evidence goes, consciousness of any sort, requires a living material brain. If you damage the brain, you damage the consciousness, and there is no invisible "soul" or "god" or "thetan" stepping in to do the thinking for the damaged brain. Without a hippocampus, you can't make new memories-- so what could any "entity" be without a brain at all??

I can see why you'd be deeply troubled that your understanding of QM allows the Scientology story and the FSM story and the Muslim story to be equally likely to be true as the one you so desperately want to believe in. I can see why you are trying desperately to brain wash yourself to convince yourself that some sort of invisible magic man has clued you into some special knowledge via feelings, faith, and pseudoscience-- I can understand the deep cognitive dissonance you feel knowing that your understanding of QM means that the Muslim hijackers could be in the exact paradise they believed they'd be going to-- and the Quo'ran could be the true book inspired by the invisible undetectable creator of the universe. It must hurt that your best argument to support whatever fairytale nonsense you believe in, could be used to prop up the craziest or most evil beliefs imaginable.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be accounted for by your version of QM. I'm glad you finally cede to his noodley appendage

Your thinking is so backwards... yes... someone will win the lottery... that doesn't improve the odds for any particular number coming up... but the one whose number comes up will see this as a sign of something or other. This is basic human egoism--mistaking correlation for causation--and confirmation bias. You're taking your weak understanding of QM and saying that it means that the bible stories could be true-- and explained by QM. But that argument could also be used to say that Icarus really flew to the sun and melted or there is a real Santa Claus in the world or demons are roaming this planet. It's a way of saying, "QM says weird things can happen... therefore, the weird thing I believe in could be true!" That may make you feel special and smart and in on the "secret of the universe"-- but it makes you no more special and smart and in on "secrets" than Tom Cruise and his heartfelt belief in Scientology. Sorry, but that's the way reality works. Reality doesn't give a shit about what you want to be true or what you "believe in".

No actual scientist would witness a "miracle" (something that defies the laws of physics) and shrug and say-- "QM"-- they'd work to understand what actually happened. We'd never learn anything if we presumed it was something we could never understand. You've allowed yourself to understand just enough misinformation about QM to pretend that you know something. You don't. You are fooling yourself and attempting to make it feel more true by spinning your delusions here. Moreover, you cannot be taught anything, because you cannot learn anything that threatens what you want to be true. So even if someone were to carefully explain why you are wrong, it would be a waste of their time. You feel special and saved for believing whatever nutty thing you believe, and you would never let silly things like facts get in the way of it. Talking actual science to you would be like trying to talk actual science to a Scientologist.

You give us no reason to thing you are any more sane or amenable to dialogue or learning, Shubee.

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:34 am

You can not have a sane dialogue with delusional people. I'd like Shubee to explain to us why we think dialogue with him would be more productive than dialogue with Tom Cruise (who could, no doubt, use Shubee's version of QM to explain whatever it is he believes.) Tom Cruise is a handsome successful guy-- far more successful than Shubee, I bet--plus he's saved peoples' lives (stumbling upon accidents and such.) QM means that anything could be true according to Shubee. Therefore Tom Cruise's beliefs about creationism etc. are as valid than Shubees, right?

So many beliefs about reality-- but only one reality... how to know which one is the truth?

I know! Actual scientists... actual evidence... !!!

Sorry Shubee and Tom Cruise-- you both fail for the exact same reasons.

by **argumentativealex** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:53 am

Spaghetti Anyone? wrote:
These are proven scientific facts - nor beliefs or mythology.

You don't know the first thing about fundamental physics. You understand nothing about quantum mechanics.

You're not related to Kleinman, by any chance?

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:07 pm

argumentativealex wrote:

You don't know the first thing about fundamental physics. You understand nothing about quantum mechanics.

You're not related to Kleinman, by any chance?

I do not know the name.

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:14 pm

All creationists sound the same after a while...

They use the arguments that worked to convince them that whatever they've been indoctrinated to believe is true-- an assortment of pedantry, misunderstandings, obfuscations, and straw men designed to confirm their own biases.

Although they sound the same to us-- I bet none of them really make sense to each other. I think that they all think that the other creationists sound a little wacky, but that THEY sound logical and coherent. It's hard to prop up a lie, when you each believe in a different version of the lie.

That's the nice thing about objective reality-- it's the same for everyone no matter what you believe. You can not wish away evolution or wish god into the equation in reality-- so creationists are are stuck doing it in their head. They are stuck with imagining that there's actual evidence for whatever it is they believe and that scientists are covering it up or ignoring it for some unknown nefarious reason.

I find them dishonest, because they enter these threads pretending to want answers to questions or to engage in dialogue, but they are clearly here to convince themselves (by convincing others) that their woo is true. Smart people waste lots of careful energy giving them tailor made answers to their questions only to be insulted, because a creationist doesn't want facts-- he wants to force his beliefs on others. One key thing I've noticed about creationists is that they are never interested in current scientific understanding on the topics or the various links provided-- they are never excited about the things actual scientist are thrilled by. I figure this is because they are so busy trying to dismantle evolution, that they cannot let themselves consider that it might be a fact. Moreover, I think they know that if they really understood it, their god would seem superfluous at best-- wasteful and cruel at worst-- and their own self importance would be greatly diminished.

by **argumentativealex** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:35 pm

You don't know the first thing about fundamental physics. You understand nothing about quantum mechanics.

You're not related to Kleinman, by any chance?

I do not know the name.

Have a look at some of his postings on the 'Why the ToE is Mathematically Impossible' thread - some of his comments about "evolutionists who don't understand the mathematics of mutation and selection" sound strangely familiar...

What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: How does God play dice with light and matter?

"One of the big mysteries of the universe"

Re: God plays dice with light and matter

Re: How does God play dice with light and matter?

Re: "One of the big mysteries of the universe"

The massive black hole

Re: The massive black hole

Re: The massive black hole

Re: The massive black hole

Re: The massive black hole

If you want to learn quantum mechanics...

Re: Creationism in the Bible is primarily something out of nothi

Re: If you want to learn quantum mechanics...

Re: "One of the big mysteries of the universe"

Quantum creation isn't magic

Re: "One of the big mysteries of the universe"

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: How does God play dice with light and matter?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

My theory is unique

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Who is online