What's Wrong With Creationism?

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:47 pm

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

Did anyone else notice what's wrong with Shubee's posts (Eugene Shubert's posts) at this link?

He's carrying on both sides of the "conversation" by copying whichever thread he thought most favorable. Vanity, vanity, vanity, thy name is Shubee (or Eugene Shubert) :nono:

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:00 pm

Take a look at the "support" Shubee received for his creationism at sci.physics.foundations
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_thread/thread/c4de9ae9a364fc79

Shubee: I created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math
>> > for those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via
>> >Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can
>> >happen.

Moderator: You can't do that.

Shubee: But of course I can. I'm a mathematician.

Moderator: It may have escaped your attention, but this is a physics newsgroup.
.
.
.
.
.
Moderator: Zero probability means that an event cannot happen.

Shubee: In finite probability spaces, you are correct. In general, all that is
>needed for a "Probability space" is a measure on a sigma-algebra of
>events that assigns to each event a number between 0 and 1.

Moderator: Indeed. But that is not all you need for the application of probability
theory to reality.
.
.
.
.
.
Moderator: If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but
>> about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible.

Shubee: No. It's all standard mathematics called measure theory, which is
>required of all first year graduate students in math when they take
>real analysis.

Moderator: I believe measure theory was one of my best courses. However, I found it
profoundly disappointing, like much of mathematics, because it does not
apply to reality. It is all very well mathematicians constructing
behaviours for objects of our thought, but those things remain objects
of our thought and essentially useless unless you can show that the
axioms of a mathematical structure describe real physical properties.

By the way, Shubee's blogpage is on a 7th Day Adventist site ...

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:15 pm

Steve55 wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Steve55 wrote:

So what is your claim to superiority?

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?

I teach high school science, and I assure you that your understanding of physics is vastly superior to shubee and his imagined expertise.

Remember, creationists think they know everything already so they cannot learn anything new. And they cannot converse with anyone whose words threaten their delusion. So of course, you won't get an answer. The only tool they have is to obfuscate and when you look confused they can claim it's because you are not deep enough or educated enough to understand. Behe does this... Kleinman does this... Shubee does this... they all do. What else do they have to support their absurd assertions? They spend their lives building up their delusions by putting down all those who challenge them.

Delusions are a lot of work to keep alive, you know.

And if you can understand Sagan and Dawkins, you can understand real scientists... the problem in understanding is NOT you. You don't need any divine powers to understand the facts that are the same for everyone... just a bit of education and a knowledge of whom to trust. Trust scientists for scientific information. Don't trust creationists, obfuscators, those with imagined expertise, philosophers, religionists, those who make vague references to QM, or those who get their science from primitive texts.

In short, don't trust people like Shubee. His information is as useful for understanding reality as Tom Cruise's information. The reason you can't understand him, is the same reason you can't understand Cruise. They just aren't saying anything amidst their verbiage.

BTW, I think your question is excellent. You can tell a creationist by the questions they avoid-- all the ones that threaten their pet delusion. They avoid all links and people who threaten their delusion too. I like to prod and poke them to discover what those buttons are--and then push them at every opportunity. Keep asking. :razz:

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:23 pm

Oh no, more Shubee madness to be found.

First, check out this thread:
Demand that Richard Dawkins retract insinuation that Hitler was Catholic

Notice that the thread was locked because Shubee refused to post in one of three already-open threads on the subject.

Then check out Shubee's twisted take on the events, posted on his home forum :
"Post subject: Did Richard Dawkins Ever Retract Saying Hitler Was Catholic?Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:16 pm
"I wonder if Dr. Richard Dawkins is courageous enough to answer my questions and if he knows that his thought police cult refuse to allow the posting of critical questions of him at the Richard Dawkins celebrity forum.

The following comments were censored by the thought police on that atheistic fan forum to remove my key points:

Do you speak for Richard Dawkins on every issue and where did Dawkins answer my question? Where does Richard Dawkins say that he is an expert on Christianity or sufficiently well-informed to know, allegedly, that the Nazi Bible is a perfect reflection of Christian beliefs?

I repeat:

Did Richard Dawkins ever retract his recent erroneous insinuation that Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic?"

Oh, the brave brave little Shubee, venturing into that den of thought control to score points against the atheists, and triumphantly returning home to tell the tale of how they cowardly refused to answer.

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:29 pm

hotshoe 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

Did anyone else notice what's wrong with Shubee's posts (Eugene Shubert's posts) at this link?

He's carrying on both sides of the "conversation" by copying whichever thread he thought most favorable. Vanity, vanity, vanity, thy name is Shubee (or Eugene Shubert)

I find creationist claptrap too vomitous to plow through, but I commend you for attempting it. Creationists never go to the links we give them though they pretend to want answers and be interested in "science". You clearly give much more attention to shubee than he deserves... you've read more of his blather than he will read of anyone here.

And thanks for pointing out it's "Eugene"... I thought it was "Eugenie"... oops. Well, it's a good thing that he doesn't share a name with our beloved Eugenie Scott, of the NSCE. Now I better switch genders. Anyhow, I think it was nice of you to read his links. He'll never thank you or go to any links you suggest, of course. He will, however, insult you if you threaten his pet delusion. Rest assured, if he ignores you, it's because you've pushed a button which threatens his CREATION DELUSION.

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:32 pm

Good Sleuthing, hotshoe. Wow, a 7th Day Adventist-- that's a real woo!

Shubee... you Creationist Adventist, you!

Come on Shubee... make a run for it... you can still use your brain before the brain shuts down all possibility of rational thought. You've been brainwashed, but you are lucky enough to have stumbled your way here... don't be afraid... look at the links provided... listen to others. You have nothing to lose but your ignorance and arrogance.

Sure, it's scary, but you are wasting the only life you have on a delusion that is as wacky and stultifying as all those other delusions you don't believe in. Think, man-- THINK. If you were believing nonsense, how would you know? Would you want to know? How do you know you are not? Surely you see that humanity is prone to making these sorts of stories up? How in the world do you imagine that you happened to have stumbled upon or been born into the one true creation story out of an infinite number of possibilities? HOW? And how arrogant is it to think that?

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:36 pm

Well, they can't be all bad; they eat healthy and they gave the world Kellogg's cereal :mrgreen:

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:43 pm

hotshoe wrote:Well, they can't be all bad; they eat healthy and they gave the world Kellogg's cereal

Kellogs cornflakes was invented to prevent masturbation. It failed. http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/

However, I guess this is a case where a byproduct of scientific ignorance was something somewhat beneficial. I suspect masturbation, a byproduct of evolution, is more beneficial, however. :mrgreen:

Cereal prevents hunger; masturbation prevents pregnancy and venereal disease as well as reducing aggression.

by **Goldenmane** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:47 pm

articulett wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Well, they can't be all bad; they eat healthy and they gave the world Kellogg's cereal

Kellogs cornflakes was invented to prevent masturbation. It failed. http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/

However, I guess this is a case where a byproduct of scientific ignorance was something somewhat beneficial. I suspect masturbation, a byproduct of evolution, is more beneficial, however.

Cereal prevents hunger; masturbation prevents pregnancy and venereal disease as well as reducing aggression.

Ah! an excellent example of the whole "technology borrowing" thing that Richard was asking about in another thread...
:mrgreen:

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:54 pm

hotshoe wrote:Oh, the brave brave little Shubee, venturing into that den of thought control to score points against the atheists, and triumphantly returning home to tell the tale of how they cowardly refused to answer.

I believe that I stated a valid argument and supplied evidence to prove that Richard Dawkins made a mistake. What does that have to do with creationism?

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:08 pm

hotshoe 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

Did anyone else notice what's wrong with Shubee's posts (Eugene Shubert's posts) at this link?

He's carrying on both sides of the "conversation" by copying whichever thread he thought most favorable.

I have every right to condense what I believe are the most important details in quantum creation in faithful excerpts of my public debates.

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:12 pm

Just making it clear that you are not exactly an impartial voice when it comes to promoting creationism ...

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:14 pm

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe 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

Did anyone else notice what's wrong with Shubee's posts (Eugene Shubert's posts) at this link?

He's carrying on both sides of the "conversation" by copying whichever thread he thought most favorable.

I have every right to condense what I believe are the most important details in quantum creation in faithful excerpts of my public debates.

Yes, and I have every right to laugh at you when you link to your own blog containing those excerpts as proving that you won, and that your crazy theory has "support" "from mathematicians".

Like, the bible is the word of god, and how do we know that ? because god said it was his word ? and where is that said ? oh, that's in the bible :doh:

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:17 pm

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Oh, the brave brave little Shubee, venturing into that den of thought control to score points against the atheists, and triumphantly returning home to tell the tale of how they cowardly refused to answer.

I believe that I stated a valid argument and supplied evidence to prove that Richard Dawkins made a mistake. What does that have to do with creationism?

Well no one else "believes" that.

You failed.

Try this lame-o game-o amongst a more stupid crowd, perhaps. Creationists, maybe? They'll believe anything if it supports their view that their "woo" is true.

I think you are way out your league here, buddy. Back to school for you.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:23 pm

hotshoe wrote: ... your crazy theory has "support" "from mathematicians".

Actually, in this instance, truth is very easy to recognize by anyone that understands measure theory and quantum mechanics.

by **Shubee** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:28 pm

articulett wrote:Good Sleuthing, hotshoe. Wow, a 7th Day Adventist-- that's a real woo!

Shubee... you Creationist Adventist, you!

I'm not an Adventist. I'm a Millerite. What does that have to do with quantum creation?

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:33 pm

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe wrote: ... your crazy theory has "support" "from mathematicians".

Actually, in this instance, truth is very easy to recognize by anyone that understands measure theory and quantum mechanics.

Well, actual smart physicists like Feynman and Victor Stenger point out that creationism is a load of bollocks. And smart Mathematicians like John Allen Paulos do too.--- you know SMART, peer-reveiwed folks.

The nice thing about reality, is that it just keeps being true whether you believe in it or not. Rest assured, if there is any actual evidence for some brand of creationism, the world will know in full peer reviewed papers.

Why don't you go play with Kleinman ; his special math proves (in his head) that evolution is false--just like your imaginary math "theory" proves (in your head) creationism is true. Say, maybe you geniuses can put together a paper for PEER REVIEW instead of trying to pretend that some real science and scientists support your delusional ideas!

(And tell us, again, why you think your verbiage is more coherent and respectable than Tom Cruise's?--I'm sure he has lots and lots of similar "evidence" proving that Scientology is true, you know. If only someone would listen.)

by **articulett** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:36 pm

Shubee wrote:

articulett wrote:Good Sleuthing, hotshoe. Wow, a 7th Day Adventist-- that's a real woo!

Shubee... you Creationist Adventist, you!

I'm not an Adventist. I'm a Millerite. What does that have to do with quantum creation?

What does anything you say have to do with the question in the OP? Or science? Or what Physicists actually say?

I imagine your brainwashing status has as much to do with your beliefs as Tom Cruise's brainwashing has to do with his.

What's wrong with creationism? The same thing that's wrong with Scientology. --Unless you've shown evidence that one has more evidence for it than the other-- have you? Which version exactly? I think we all missed it.

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:41 pm

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe wrote: ... your crazy theory has "support" "from mathematicians".

Actually, in this instance, truth is very easy to recognize by anyone that understands measure theory and quantum mechanics.

Yep, that explains why you are so famous. I knew I recognized your name from somewhere. It was when you won the Fields Medal for your work on quantum creationism.

Oh, wait, it wasn't.

Funny how far your truth still has to go to be recognized by anyone besides your fellow cult members ...

by **ginckgo** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:49 pm

Shubee wrote:

articulett wrote:Good Sleuthing, hotshoe. Wow, a 7th Day Adventist-- that's a real woo!

Shubee... you Creationist Adventist, you!

I'm not an Adventist. I'm a Millerite. What does that have to do with quantum creation?

wikipedia wrote:Millerite is a nickel sulfide mineral, NiS. It is brassy in colour and has an acicular habit, often forming radiating masses and furry aggregates. It can be distinguished from pentlandite by crystal habit, its duller colour, and general lack of association with pyrite or pyrrhotite.

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:51 pm

Why don't you go play with Kleinman ; his special math proves (in his head) that evolution is false--just like your imaginary math "theory" proves (in your head) creationism is true. Say, maybe you geniuses can put together a paper for PEER REVIEW

You nailed that one. Eugene has been pushing one flavor or another of this quantum drivel all over the internet for half a decade - just like Kleinman has done with his own brand of drivel. Forum shopping whenever he gets banned or perhaps merely gets bored with the level of non-fawning replies :tongue:

by **ginckgo** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:51 pm

ginckgo wrote:

Shubee wrote:

articulett wrote:Good Sleuthing, hotshoe. Wow, a 7th Day Adventist-- that's a real woo!

Shubee... you Creationist Adventist, you!

I'm not an Adventist. I'm a Millerite. What does that have to do with quantum creation?

wikipedia wrote:Millerite is a nickel sulfide mineral, NiS. It is brassy in colour and has an acicular habit, often forming radiating masses and furry aggregates. It can be distinguished from pentlandite by crystal habit, its duller colour, and general lack of association with pyrite or pyrrhotite.

Oh wait, sorry:

wikipedia wrote:The Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller who, in 1833, first shared publicly his belief in the coming Second Advent of Jesus Christ in roughly the year 1843.

by **ginckgo** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:52 pm

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe wrote: ... your crazy theory has "support" "from mathematicians".

Actually, in this instance, truth truthiness is very easy to recognize by anyone that understands measure theory and quantum mechanics has faith.

fixed

by **hotshoe** on Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:53 pm

ginckgo wrote:

Shubee wrote:

articulett wrote:Good Sleuthing, hotshoe. Wow, a 7th Day Adventist-- that's a real woo!

Shubee... you Creationist Adventist, you!

I'm not an Adventist. I'm a Millerite. What does that have to do with quantum creation?

wikipedia wrote:Millerite is a nickel sulfide mineral, NiS. It is brassy in colour and has an acicular habit, often forming radiating masses and furry aggregates. It can be distinguished from pentlandite by crystal habit, its duller colour, and general lack of association with pyrite or pyrrhotite.

by **argumentativealex** on Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:32 am

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".

That's what I was going to say! (Curse this time difference!).
My point was that this kind of 'you-dont-agree-with-me-so-you-know-absolutely-nothing-about-...whateveritis' is typical of the Kleinman school of argument. He is constantly banging on about "evolution by mutation/selection being impossible" on the basis of a) artificial situations that are not reflected in the real world and b) a limited mathematical model. He replies to all arguments with the mantra "you clearly not not understand the mathematics" and your responses just sounded depressingly familiar, that's all.

Ok, carry on.

What's Wrong With Creationism?

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

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: The Infinite Improbability Drive

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?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

What Does This Have To Do With Creationism?

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

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

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

Re: What Does This Have To Do With Creationism?

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

What's Wrong With Adventists?

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

Re: What's Wrong With Adventists?

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

Re: What's Wrong With Adventists?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Re: What's Wrong With Adventists?

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

Re: What's Wrong With Adventists?

Re: What's Wrong With Creationism?

Who is online