What's Wrong With Creationism?

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:57 pm

argumentativealex wrote:Have a look at some of his postings on the 'Why the ToE is Mathematically Impossible'

I don't know if physicists know what they mean by a "Theory of Everything." I simply don't have much of an interest in any area of physics when it's based on poorly defined fantasies.

argumentativealex wrote:- some of his comments about "evolutionists who don't understand the mathematics of mutation and selection" sound strangely familiar...

I don't know anything about genetics so I wouldn't be qualified to comment on the mathematics of mutation and selection.

by **Darkchilde** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:15 pm

Shubee wrote:I don't know if physicists know what they mean by a "Theory of Everything." I simply don't have much of an interest in any area of physics when it's based on poorly defined fantasies.

First of all physics IS SCIENCE! Creationism is based on poorly defined fantasies, not physics. Physics is responsible for a lot of things that you use in everyday life. From a light bulb to a computer, they are all based on physics. From Maxwell's equations to Einstein's theory of relativity, everything in physics has been proven again and again. A couple of months ago I read another article on how relativity was ONCE AGAIN proven right. Physics is based in mathematics and the evidence of experiments and observation of the real world. PHYSICS is one of the most important sciences and a beautiful one. Before writing nonsense, please read a book on real science!

A Theory of Everything is simply another name for the Unified Theory. We have so far managed to find a theory that unifies 3 of the 4 main forces of the universe: electromagnetism (which includes light), the weak and the strong interaction. The only force that still escapes is gravity. There are various theories that have been proposed, one of which is String Theory by Prof. Stephen Hawking.

Physics is the basis of everything we use. From the light bulb to the computer, everything is based on physics. So, if you think that physics is fantasies, do not use any of those things. Do not use the heater; or your car; do not use a computer to write such nonsense, neither take any medicine when you are ill.

by **Steve55** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:01 pm

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

Is that my fault or yours? As the supposedly better educated you ought to be able to give a condensed laymans version of how it works. If you can't then it suggests your education is not so good as you thought.

From one of your links:

Eugene Shubert wrote:Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man...

Ever read Douglas Adams and his Infinite Improbability Drive? I think you guys would have a lot in common, but Mr Adams died a few years ago. He was extremely smart and very perceptive.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:03 pm

Darkchilde wrote:

Shubee wrote:I don't know if physicists know what they mean by a "Theory of Everything." I simply don't have much of an interest in any area of physics when it's based on poorly defined fantasies.

A Theory of Everything is simply another name for the Unified Theory. We have so far managed to find a theory that unifies 3 of the 4 main forces of the universe: electromagnetism (which includes light), the weak and the strong interaction. The only force that still escapes is gravity. There are various theories that have been proposed, one of which is String Theory by Prof. Stephen Hawking.

The Unified Theory is like the word that represents God. It's nothing but a label for what physicists know nothing about. String theory is a joke.

Darkchilde wrote:Creationism is based on poorly defined fantasies, not physics.

Quantum creation, the subject of this thread, is based on quantum physics.

Darkchilde wrote:Please read a book on real science!

I am currently reading Peter Woit's, "Not Even Wrong." You should respect Peter Woit thesis. Woit is a mathematician and a physicist. He argues that you are just a blind follower of a made-up religion:

Blurb on book wrote:Has physics gone off in the wrong direction? Peter Woit presents the other side of the growing debate on string theory--arguing that it's not even science. At what point does theory depart the realm of testable hypothesis and come to resemble something like aesthetic speculation, or even theology? The legendary physicist Wolfgang Pauli had a phrase for such ideas: He would describe them as "not even wrong," meaning that they were so incomplete that they could not even be used to make predictions to compare with observations to see whether they were wrong or not. In Peter Woit's view, superstring theory is just such an idea. In Not Even Wrong, he shows that what many physicists call superstring "theory" is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish. Not Even Wrong explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today and shows that judgments about scientific statements, which should be based on the logical consistency of argument and experimental evidence, are instead based on the eminence of those claiming to know the truth. In the face of many books from enthusiasts for string theory, this book presents the other side of the story.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:27 pm

Steve55 wrote:

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

Is that my fault or yours? As the supposedly better educated you ought to be able to give a condensed laymans version of how it works. If you can't then it suggests your education is not so good as you thought.

It's your fault. I prefer to refer you to specialists in quantum mechanics that can explain in great detail why all the laws of physics are essentially probabilistic and that the dividing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21-22) is consistent with quantum physics. I only need prove that physicists concede that my point is correct and I have done that: http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism.

Steve55 wrote:From one of your links:

Eugene Shubert wrote:Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man...

Ever read Douglas Adams and his Infinite Improbability Drive? I think you guys would have a lot in common, ... He was extremely smart and very perceptive.

I have only read a little bit of Douglas Adams. He's a great writer.

by **Darkchilde** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:33 pm

Shubee wrote:The Unified Theory is like the word that represents God. It's nothing but a label for what physicists know nothing about. String theory is a joke.

String theory is not a joke. It is a theory, and it is still being developed. It is not complete and needs more work. That does not mean it is a joke. It just means that until it is complete and proven, it is a candidate for the Unified Theory.
The Unified Theory has nothing to do with your imaginary sky wizard. It has to do with the unification of the basic forces in the universe, and it is a research that has been going on for years. It has nothing to do with any imaginary god whatsoever. No physicist ever said that.

Shubee wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Creationism is based on poorly defined fantasies, not physics.

Quantum creation, the subject of this thread, is based on quantum physics.

Quantum creation has again nothing to do with any imaginary sky wizard.

Shubee wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Please read a book on real science!

I am currently reading Peter Woit's, "Not Even Wrong." You should respect Peter Woit thesis. Woit is a mathematician and a physicist. He argues that you are just a blind follower of a made-up religion:

Has physics gone off in the wrong direction? Peter Woit presents the other side of the growing debate on string theory--arguing that it's not even science. At what point does theory depart the realm of testable hypothesis and come to resemble something like aesthetic speculation, or even theology? The legendary physicist Wolfgang Pauli had a phrase for such ideas: He would describe them as "not even wrong," meaning that they were so incomplete that they could not even be used to make predictions to compare with observations to see whether they were wrong or not. In Peter Woit's view, superstring theory is just such an idea. In Not Even Wrong, he shows that what many physicists call superstring "theory" is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish. Not Even Wrong explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today and shows that judgments about scientific statements, which should be based on the logical consistency of argument and experimental evidence, are instead based on the eminence of those claiming to know the truth. In the face of many books from enthusiasts for string theory, this book presents the other side of the story.

I haven't read any of Woit's work. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong, I cannot say. That is because research is still ongoing on all these theories. I, and most people here, have not made any theory into a religion or other. I do not blindly follow it; I am open to other scientific theories as long as they are logical and can be proven.

Shubee wrote:It's your fault. I prefer to refer you to specialists in quantum mechanics that can explain in great detail why all the laws of physics are essentially probabilistic and that the dividing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21-22) is consistent with quantum physics. I only need prove that physicists concede that my point is correct and I have done that: http://www.everythingimportant.org/creationism.

I followed the link that you provided, but I cannot see any proof or anything about how quantum mechanics explains how Moses could divide the Red Sea. There has never been any shred of evidence that this ever happened... Could you please explain it? How did it happen? What kind of forces were involved? How did Moses know how to do it, since quantum mechanics, and other similar knowledge did not exist at the time?

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:45 pm

Shubee is only interested in science so far as it can support what s/he "believes in"-- like all creationists (including the ones who believe in things s/he finds laughable).

String theory is not a joke-- it's an actual scientific theory.

Creationism IS a joke however. It hasn't an iota of evidence in support of it's nebulous claims. It's on par with the notion that we are living in a Matrix version of reality... it is no more or less scientific than that.

I find that creationists have a really poor sense of humor... but they are great fun to laugh at.

http://popsicklestrip.com/full.php?s=fish-man

by **Russell** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:52 pm

Shubee wrote:

argumentativealex wrote:Have a look at some of his postings on the 'Why the ToE is Mathematically Impossible'

I don't know if physicists know what they mean by a "Theory of Everything." I simply don't have much of an interest in any area of physics when it's based on poorly defined fantasies.

It's all about providing a theory which unifies the fundamental forces of nature, this is how it goes

Magnetic force + Electric force = Electromagnetism
Electromagnetism + Weak nuclear force = Electroweak force
Electroweak force + Strong nuclear force = Electronuclear force (or a Grand Unified Theory GUT)
Electronuclear force + Gravity = Theory of Everything

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:01 pm

Steve55 wrote:

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

Is that my fault or yours? As the supposedly better educated you ought to be able to give a condensed laymans version of how it works. If you can't then it suggests your education is not so good as you thought.

From one of your links:

Eugene Shubert wrote:Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man...

Ever read Douglas Adams and his Infinite Improbability Drive? I think you guys would have a lot in common, but Mr Adams died a few years ago. He was extremely smart and very perceptive.

Oh... I guess "shubee" is Eugene Shubert"... shubee thinks humans "poofed" into existence-- that's the brand of creationism she's talking about-- the crazy kind. Neither Professor Hawking or any respected science accept that fairytale because the evidence shows a far more believable and lengthy process is the means by which humanity arose-- evolution by natural selection; common descent. (Even the wackaloon creationist (who denies being a creationist), Behe accepts common descent.)

Unfortunately, Shubee can't be bothered to learn things that conflict with her dogma. tsk.

by **Steve55** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:03 pm

Shubee wrote:I have only read a little bit of Douglas Adams. He's a great writer.

He is also a very sharp philosopher and renown atheist. He uses your arguments as satire. He makes a mockery of your thinking.

Newton was never in error about the "middle world" - the errors only became evident when looking at the very large, as in universe scale, and the very small, as in quanta. Einstein made some corrections for the very large and Bohr et al made some corrections for the small.

The red sea parting is a "middle world" phenomenon and subject to all the influences of gravity and angular momentum as described by Newton. The quantum effects would be statistically insignificant and thus imperceptible to the naked eye. For the red sea to part there would have to be a suspension or adjustment of physical constants, which are the very essence of the "highly ordered reality" that you have referred to.

You can have one or the other, but not both.
We have lots of empirical evidence for one and none for the other.
You are backing the wrong explanation based on observation and empiricism.

by **Largenton** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:14 pm

Shubee, did you ever read my links on Turok? You know, the ones that actually show how a form of String theory can be proven and sets out to falsify it? The one that just puts a nice hole in your argument? Do you care to respond to it?

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:35 pm

Remember, creationism makes people feel like they know something while not knowing anything at all.

Shubee thinks she has much to teach, and nothing to learn.

Therefore, like all creationists, she will ignore your links and the questions that conflict with her imagined expertise, but she will expect others to go to her "creationism" links. (Creationists seldom model the respect they expect for themselves.)

Her question in the OP was insincere-- it was just a way of inviting response so that she can preach what she "believes in" which is about as scientific and intelligible as what Tom Cruise "believes in". I suspect all conversations with Shubee would be on par with discussing the same stuff with Tom Cruise. Like Tom Cruise, she believes shes "stumbled upon" or found "divine truths" which trump scientific understandings and she's here to spin those delusions so they feel even more true in her head--the same as Tom Cruise is doing on the video I linked. The real question is how do you deprogram the deluded?

I don't think dialogue with the woo crowd is possible because they are so dishonest -- they've been lying to themselves for so long. They feel good about what they "believe"!-- This is more important than what is true to them.

But they do make for an excellent study in cognitive dissonance. All believers in the supernatural-- especially creationists-- serve as stunning examples of what "faith" can do to reasoned thought. They cannot understand why we treat them like the people they find crazy e.g.(Scientologists, Muslims, Moonies, schizophrenics, Wiccans)-- and yet they offer nothing in the way of evidence that distinguishes them from the deluded! Their arguments could be used just as easily by those espousing the beliefs that find crazy!

Shubee is an example of exactly what is wrong with creationism, and she's too brainwashed to "get it". But everyone else can. I think it's funny, because surely she sees the craziness of Tom Cruise in the tape I linked, but she has no clue that she is coming off equally as crazy, self important, and incoherent in her ramblings. All those who imagine themselves as "in on" divine truths come across that way to me. I find the way humans fool themselves, fascinating. I have been there, but I don't ever want to revisit that place... it looks so sad from the outside looking in-- junk food for the brain-- delusions filling in for real, true, wondrous, and useful knowledge that we humans are the very first to be able to comprehend. I'm glad I reasoned my way out, but I have no idea how to help others.

I laughed when I read about Douglas Adam's middle world--and Dawkin's expansion on the topic (we evolved to fit in "middle world" and understand "middle world"--our discovery of more than middle world is due to our evolutionary need to assimilate information.)-- (cool article on the topic: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=9bc88b1f-14fa-43b4-8f2c-06fad52ca155 ). I love understanding the reference... but Shubee probably thinks in terms of middle world being "earth"-- sandwiched between heaven and hell. She is saved from knowing how sad her own ignorance is, and what she has lost by not being interested in getting a clue. But I am sad when I compare the depth of Adams with the provincial thoughts of Shubee... just as I am saddened when people glorify ancient tales of creation while failing to grasp the glorious and much more wondrous stories revealed by the DNA in every cell of our bodies. That's a grand story everybody's god forgot to mention-- as he was too busy telling others who they should kill for what and which animals needed to be sacrificed and how!

I feel sad for Shubee the same way I feel sad for a Jehovah Witness who can't get a blood transfusion lest they don't go to heaven... and I feel sad for Amish kids who fear electricity and technology and feel that the best way to get to heaven is to get all their learning from a primitive text. Religion IS child abuse. And these children grow into adults that spread their ignorant memes and genes on to others in far greater numbers than their more reasoned peers.

Creationism is a lie proffered to support this inane notion that believing something is more important than anything else-- what you do, think, or understand. Creationism is a meme that implies that what you believe is more important than what is true. It implies that belief itself is ennobling! What a sad lie that is.

It's fun to make fun of such folks and observe them... but they are spreading mental virus, and it behooves us all to learn how to address it. Maybe exposing them and laughing at them is a good method. I think it's lowering the growth of Scientology-- and so I hope it will curb the Christian brand of creation hubris/nuttery too. I'm a science teacher... I do my part to correct the damage inflicted by people like Shubee. I know she can't help what was done to her, but I do hope she doesn't inflict her ignorance on trusting minds so that their understanding of reality can go far beyond her own.

Creationism makes people "afraid" to "bite from the tree of knowledge". It makes them question the story their religious leaders swore to them was fact... the one they've been promised "salvation" for "believing in". They've been told that it's arrogant to question such stories-- akin to questioning god.

It's a horrifyingly manipulative meme.

Love the creationist--Hate the creationism???

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:01 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.

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...

Really, after a while, all creationists sound the same. There are only so many ways to spin the lie. Kleinman shops around his delusion at various skeptic sites until he's banned... for all I know, shubee does too. I've seen several people here, that I've seen on JREF and other skeptical forums. I think that creationists present questions to scientists or skeptics so that they can tell themselves and others that their arguments have been considered skeptically and the scientists couldn't "answer them". In their head that means they "stumped the scientists". In our heads, we realize we've happened upon another nutter. When we treat them the way they treat us, they claim we are mean. She's not going to look at Kleinman's posts because she really is not interested in anything except preaching her viewpoint here under the guise of having a scientific dialogue.

Like Shubee and Kleinman, all creotards seem to imagine themselves experts on some topics that no one else recognizes their expertise in. They all have their little lynch pin that they need to prove to keep their personal delusion alive (usually something that they never lay out for examination... they are content to pick apart scientists while offering nothing in return.) They have no interest in following links, learning of new discoveries, clarifying information, or actually having their questions answered. They have a high thread starting ratio and a very low reading and responding to others on this forum. They don't ask or care what others' expertise is-- they just ASSUME they know more. They expect others to drink in what they say, but they don't really read or care what anyone else has to say.

Shubee is "Kleinman light" with a slightly different angle. Until she gives someone a reason to respect her more than Kleinman, I wouldn't. And I advise everyone to keep your expectations as low as you've learned to keep them with Kleinman. Creotards are impervious to information that conflicts with what they want to be true. Dialogue with them is truly on par with dialogue with Tom Cruise telling him why Scientology is not science. Really.

After a while you can recognize the stench in an instant...

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:10 pm

Remember, the more you threaten a creotard's delusion with things like facts and logic, the nastier they will be. They will attack the messenger with every straw man possible to keep from hearing the message that they are as full of shit as all those crazy other believers in things they don't believe in. They are only pretending to want information.

Creotards are used to having their special delusions treated with respect and shielded from scrutiny... their brainwasher's promised them that faith is "ennobling" and that they will be saved for believing whatever it is they "believe in". I suggest using them for entertainment purposes only. Or keep them busy so that they are less likely to spread their mind virus to innocents.

Here's a question for the non-creationists. Are there any creationists that you find particularly likable, honest, or funny?

Are there any that aren't scientific ignoramuses? I know there are lots of theists that believe in a sort of deist god or they accept evolution or don't think about it a lot-- but do you know any creationists that are really admirable people? I'm talking people who believe that god poofed life into being... or they have faith in some other "creation of life" story. I know that only a dishonest creationist would dare to call Hawking a "creationist"... but I'm talking about those who fit the standard definition of the word-- those that deny evolution or think that it couldn't have happened without god (or Xenu or some other conscious but invisible entity or entities) sticking an invisible finger in and guiding the process along the way. I'm not talking people from past eras, when we didn't have the kind of understanding of evolution we have today... I'm talking present day people. Is there anything positive that creationism adds to humanity and is there any creationist that is an example of someone you'd like to be more like? I rack my brains, but I come up empty. There may be some, but they are apparently those who keep their beliefs private-- so their ignorance/arrogance is not on display to me.

Is there any reason we should treat Abrahamic creationism different than we treat Muslim, Raelian, Voo Doo, Scientology, or Hindu creationism? Just wondering. They're all associated with scientific ignorance and social ills, right?

by **Fronkey** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:18 pm

I prefer to refer you to specialists in quantum mechanics that can explain in great detail why all the laws of physics are essentially probabilistic and that the dividing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21-22) is consistent with quantum physics.

Steve55 has already answered this, but I wanted to pick on another aspect - aren't you just arguing that there's no such thing as a (mathematically) impossible event, so it could have happened?

There's no comeback to that one, sure, but not in a good way for you

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:29 pm

Fronkey wrote:

I prefer to refer you to specialists in quantum mechanics that can explain in great detail why all the laws of physics are essentially probabilistic and that the dividing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21-22) is consistent with quantum physics.

Steve55 has already answered this, but I wanted to pick on another aspect - aren't you just arguing that there's no such thing as a (mathematically) impossible event, so it could have happened?

There's no comeback to that one, sure, but not in a good way for you

Exactly. Because it means the claims in Dianetics or the Quo'ran are just as likely to be true as the one's in the bible.

Space Aliens are as likely to have abducted Jimmy Hoffa's body as anything else. A planet made of cheese could exist.

Charles Manson really could have been getting messages from some god. We could be in a Matrix. Zeus could have been tossing lightening bolts.

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:42 pm

Zeus could have been tossing lightening bolts.

Ahh, that explains the mess at my place :twisted:

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:31 pm

hotshoe wrote:

Zeus could have been tossing lightening bolts.

Ahh, that explains the mess at my place

Hmm... your place, too, eh?

And here I've been blaming Entropy.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:49 pm

Steve55 wrote:

Shubee wrote:I have only read a little bit of Douglas Adams. He's a great writer.

He is also a very sharp philosopher and renown atheist. He uses your arguments as satire. He makes a mockery of your thinking.

I tend to agree:

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).

Steve55 wrote:The quantum effects would be statistically insignificant and thus imperceptible to the naked eye. For the red sea to part there would have to be a suspension or adjustment of physical constants, which are the very essence of the "highly ordered reality" that you have referred to.

Your immature high school understanding of quantum physics proves nothing, except that you are content with superficiality and that you refuse to learn.

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:51 pm

The person with IMAGINARY expertise on physics has the audacity to insult someone's understanding that he cannot even begin to grasp due to his massive scientific ignorance-- not that he'd bother asking anyone what they knew-creationists never do-- they assume they know all already, right?--their guru and invisible savior clued them in.

He (shubee) presumes he knows Douglas Adams opinions and words just as he presumes Hawking is a creationist! What an insanely dishonest self-aggrandizing person this shubee (Eugene Shubert) is!

Douglas Adams had much respect for science, but he regularly laughed at folks like shubee who imagined themselves special as though the universe existed to bring forth them in particular!. Shubee is akin to a person looking at a sign that says "you are here" and thinking "wow, the person who made this sign must be psychic to know that "I am here.")

Adams often laughed at the hubris of people who think the universe was created to bring forth them-- ! A cockroach could think the same thing, you know-- look how well it fits in this world. Fungus too. I'm sure my dog thinks the universe was designed for her-- she fits in it so perfectly well... almost like the world was "designed" for her!

But this universe is vast. Our own sun is a non nondescript star of trillions-- all of which could have planets around them. We are insignificant--but we are the first humans to understand this.

Get a clue.

It wasn't physicists that Adams made fun of-- it was self-important people like you!

But thanks for proving once again how creationists talk out of their ass talking about things they know nothing about and dismissing all those who might give them a clue because they are so sure they know all.

Of course clues are impenetrable to the creationist mind. You didn't want information, shubee--- you want to believe that the information you "believe in" is correct-- and so you let in nothing that challenges your brainwashing.

Is there ANYTHING good about creationism? Is there any honest creationist?

by **Steve55** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:54 pm

Shubee wrote:

Steve55 wrote:The quantum effects would be statistically insignificant and thus imperceptible to the naked eye. For the red sea to part there would have to be a suspension or adjustment of physical constants, which are the very essence of the "highly ordered reality" that you have referred to.

Your immature high school understanding of quantum physics proves nothing, except that you are content with superficiality and that you refuse to learn.

My high school was fully mature! It was 50 years old when I started. Please do not insult my high school! Also, it vied regularly for top honors in the entire country for academic achievement. I personally was not a top student, especially in physics, as I was too busy with social stuff and I had the best girlfriend and she WAS a top student, plus both her parents were real scientists with PhD's. One in physics.

So what is your claim to superiority? :dunno:

Could you actually be of some help to us poor unfortunates and explain in simple terms how Moses applied QM to part the red sea?

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:07 pm

It's very very arrogant and ignorant to assume you know what Hawking, Douglas Adams or Steve55 think or know, Shubee--- you don't even have enough education, it seems, to understand what they are saying, and no one but yourself seems to think you are an expert on physics... much less coherent on the topic of science at all. Why doesn't this make you embarrassed or ashamed? Have you no morality? No humility? No shame?

But I suppose this arrogance/ignorance is a byproduct of, not only believing in an undetectable invisible creator of the universe,-- but BELIEVING that you know what he wants-- and believing that he CREATED the universe to bring forth YOU on this minor planet in deep space time for some "special", "divine" reason. Such hubris! Though understandable in primitive humans-- it's embarrassing for those with access to the knowledge so readily available to modern people.

But, of course, once again you illustrate so beautifully EXACTLY what is wrong with creationism.

It makes people unbelievably arrogant while being unimaginably ignorant and even crazy. It gives them these crazy, Tom Cruise-ian "messiah complexes" and the rest of us must live with them. They are impenetrable to reason. They are the people who feel glorified because they managed to get a glimpse of the proverbial "Emperor's New Clothes" (or so they imagine) and they feel ever so special for it-- so ready to tsk-tsk the truth tellers who say he's naked. They feel as special as the hijackers chosen personally by Allah to drive airplanes into buildings so that they might ensure a place in paradise for their friends and family! Hurray for faith, eh? Hurray for creationism and the scientific ignorance and fake humility that goes with it.

You can lead a creationist to evidence and knowledge, but you cannot make them think. The longer they seep their brain in faith, the more impenetrable their brain becomes to reason.

by **pawiz** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:08 pm

I am really liking articulett these days - great post :cheers:

What articulett said.

by **Goldenmane** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:33 pm

I think we know what Hawking would say to anyone claiming him to be supportive of creationism:

Fuck the damn creationists
I say it with authority
Cos kicking their punk asses
Is my paramount priority

-MC Hawking, "Fuck the Creationists"

:mrgreen:

by **Goldenmane** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:44 pm

Shubee wrote:

argumentativealex wrote:Have a look at some of his postings on the 'Why the ToE is Mathematically Impossible'

I don't know if physicists know what they mean by a "Theory of Everything." I simply don't have much of an interest in any area of physics when it's based on poorly defined fantasies.

Just to point out, the thread referenced isn't about a "Theory of Everything". "ToE" = "Theory of Evolution".

What's Wrong With Creationism?

What's Wrong With Non-mathematical Fantasies?

Re: What's Wrong With Evolutionists?

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

What's Wrong With the Superstring Religion?

The Infinite Improbability Drive

Re: What's Wrong With the Superstring Religion?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Non-mathematical Fantasies?

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

Re: The Infinite Improbability Drive

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: The Infinite Improbability Drive

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: The Infinite Improbability Drive

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Non-mathematical Fantasies?

Who is online