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.

Ah, your immature comic book understanding of quantum physics is getting you into all sorts of trouble here. I'm sorry, but there's just no way that an event described as a parting of seas can be seen as an expression of quantum mechanics. It seems to me you don't understand QM, and you don't understand the scales involved. Why is scale important? Because the numbers here are big. The chances of a single drop of water shifting sideways on it's own in contravention of gravity are minute. QM simply does not apply on larger scales. Same as entropy doesn't apply on very small scales. But they're based on the same rules. In fact I remember running through the statistical derivation of entropy from basic principles in Uni thermodynamics class. And it's essentially built on the building blocks of QM. So, entropy (the ideas that tell you things behave sensibly, and seas don't part) is the higher order version of QM.
It strikes me that your comments about spontaneous creation of matter have skipped over the actual details like simultaneous creation of anti-matter. And a sea is not going to quantum tunnel all it's components off to the side of anything. And even if it somehow miraculously did, it would immediately fill the vacant area. No amount of mumbling about half remembered QM ideas will exempt huge bodies of water from gravity.
And so we get to Big Bang ideas. The short version is we don't know yet what events preceeded the event, but there's no guarantee that it involved spontaneous matter creation. And even if it did, it does not make it the "same thing" as biblical creation.
Your problem is you think half reading something on wikipedia is as good as going to university, and clearly better than High school education. Which makes me wonder if you got all the way through your high school education.

Sorry this is really for my book-marking purposes but in an attempt to contribute something;

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?

Oh joy, yet another religious sect I’m not up to speed on, no doubt expecting the second coming. Let’s see ah yes,

Wiki 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...this date was determined to be October 22, 1844”
“The Great Disappointment“….....The sun rose on the morning of October 23 like any other day….

Well they got off to the usual bad start in the tradition of cultist sects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment

They came to the conclusion that “the sanctuary to be cleansed in Daniel 8:14 was not the earth or the church, but the sanctuary in heaven.”[14] Therefore, the October 22 date marked not the Second Coming of Christ, but rather a heavenly event. Out of this third group arose the Seventh-day Adventist Church and this interpretation of the Great Disappointment forms the basis for the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. Their insights were published in early 1845 in the Day Dawn.
Psychological perspective
The Great Disappointment is viewed by some scholars as an example of the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance.[15] The theory was proposed by Leon Festinger to describe the formation of new beliefs and increased proselytizing in order to reduce the tension, or dissonance, that results from failed prophecies.[16] According to the theory, believers experienced tension following the failure of Jesus' reappearance in 1844 which led to a variety of new explanations. The various solutions form a part of the teachings of the different groups that outlived the disappointment.

Edit: Added last quote box.

Any one else think this thread feels awfully sockpuppetish?

Phoebus wrote:Any one else think this thread feels awfully sockpuppetish?

So much so that it prompted me to do my laundry... I could smell dirty socks and it just didn't go away!

Phoebus wrote:Any one else think this thread feels awfully sockpuppetish?

I called that back on page 2.

One sec, so Shubee admits he's part of a church where the 7-day Adventists arose from? Also Shubee have you heard of the "Great Disappointment"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites

And finally, is anyone else reading what I'm posting or are my posts invisible, explaining why Shubee is having fun ignoring them?

Shubee is ignoring posts, I reckon. I can read your posts fine!

Largenton wrote:And finally, is anyone else reading what I'm posting or are my posts invisible

That's Quantum Mechanics for you.

DuckPhup wrote:

Phoebus wrote:Any one else think this thread feels awfully sockpuppetish?

I called that back on page 2.

LIAR, you used quantum mechanics to put the post there, so it LOOKED like you posted it before me...


... hey, I like this whole blame quantum mechanics thing, it works :D

Largenton wrote:And finally, is anyone else reading what I'm posting or are my posts invisible, explaining why Shubee is having fun ignoring them?

Ask Schrodinger's cat ...

whippa wrote:The chances of a single drop of water shifting sideways on it's own in contravention of gravity are minute.

I never said otherwise. But I did say in the strongest possible language that God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats. And if you were to read Exodus 14:21-22 carefully, you would see that God used air molecules, not any innate contravention of gravity.

Since you put this on your imaginary sky wizard:
What evidence do you have that said supernatural entity (that you call god) exists? I mean real hard scientific evidence!

The Exodus never really happened. There is no evidence of any massive exodus from Egypt, there is no evidence of any plagues or any afflictions that befell Egypt such as are described by the Bible. I read an article a while ago exactly about why this whole Moses and Exodus stuff is pure mythos and has no truth.

Shubee, the Bible is just the mythology of Christianity.

whippa wrote: I'm sorry, but there's just no way that an event described as a parting of seas can be seen as an expression of quantum mechanics. It seems to me you don't understand QM, and you don't understand the scales involved. Why is scale important? Because the numbers here are big. The chances of a single drop of water shifting sideways on it's own in contravention of gravity are minute. QM simply does not apply on larger scales. Same as entropy doesn't apply on very small scales. But they're based on the same rules. In fact I remember running through the statistical derivation of entropy from basic principles in Uni thermodynamics class. And it's essentially built on the building blocks of QM. So, entropy (the ideas that tell you things behave sensibly, and seas don't part) is the higher order version of QM.

I see that you have studied basic quantum theory before but have a mental block for quantum creation.

Eugene Shubert wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:Suppose I tell you that I was watching a glass of water the other day, and with no outside energy applied it just happened that half of it froze solid while the other half boiled away. Would you believe me?

David, thank you for bringing up this very familiar illustration in quantum physics. You have proven my point. The accepted and widely acknowledged answer by the experts in quantum physics is that the event that you described can happen, although with fantastically small, non-zero probability.

Now, please consider the meaning of this amusing curiosity. When mainstream physicists interpret quantum physics and assert that miraculous events can happen in a glass of water, the meaning of fantastically small probability is not disputed. When I ask about the quantum mechanical chances for the Red Sea to part (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day (Genesis 2:7), then suddenly those events call into question the meaning of fantastically small probabilities.

Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

Shubee wrote:

Eugene Shubert wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:Suppose I tell you that I was watching a glass of water the other day, and with no outside energy applied it just happened that half of it froze solid while the other half boiled away. Would you believe me?

David, thank you for bringing up this very familiar illustration in quantum physics. You have proven my point. The accepted and widely acknowledged answer by the experts in quantum physics is that the event that you described can happen, although with fantastically small, non-zero probability.

Now, please consider the meaning of this amusing curiosity. When mainstream physicists interpret quantum physics and assert that miraculous events can happen in a glass of water, the meaning of fantastically small probability is not disputed. When I ask about the quantum mechanical chances for the Red Sea to part (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day (Genesis 2:7), then suddenly those events call into question the meaning of fantastically small probabilities.

Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

Events with astronomically small probability do not make good explanations for anything when there are incredibly more likely explanations for the same thing. The early state of the universe after the first moment in time did not include life, planets, stars, atoms or even space-time as we now know it. The universe was in a very simple state with super symmetry. This can be determined by observing things and forces in the real world, extrapolating and then testing hypothesis. There is no need to invoke incredibly unlikely random events. Assuming that the universe came into being suddenly and fully formed at some apparently later state requires hugely unnecessary assumptions that cannot be supported without some form of confirming evidence, or even at least mildly suggestive evidence.

Tales of events happening that have incredibly small probability are not credible without some evidence as to their veracity. Just because these events could happen once in the life time of a billion quintillion universe does not suddenly mean that those events are now actually likely. Further more even if they did happen and you had a video of it that does not imply god did it or that we should not investigate to find out if something else was happening other than an unlikely random event.

Shubee wrote:

whippa wrote:The chances of a single drop of water shifting sideways on it's own in contravention of gravity are minute.

I never said otherwise. But I did say in the strongest possible language that God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats. And if you were to read Exodus 14:21-22 carefully, you would see that God used air molecules, not any innate contravention of gravity.

I asked earlier about the bit I bolded and you skipped it...

How can you tell?

How can you tell?

Hey, I can answer that - we can tell he cheats because he was promised to come back, and he hasn't shown up. No fair, cheating all those faithful Millerites out of their godly expectation

Shubee wrote:

whippa wrote:The chances of a single drop of water shifting sideways on it's own in contravention of gravity are minute.

I never said otherwise. But I did say in the strongest possible language that God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats. And if you were to read Exodus 14:21-22 carefully, you would see that God used air molecules, not any innate contravention of gravity.

And let's all join in this time EXODUS DIDN'T HAPPEN! There is no evidence for the "exodus" there is no "conquest" of Canaan. Like Darkchilde said, it didn't happen and the complete and utter lack of any evidence for these events proves it.

And again I'm probably ignored, despite what I say

And let's all join in this time EXODUS DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Well, it could have happened, if god cheated

So there

I'll join in, Largenton.

What Exodus? The one that almost certainly didn't happen? That, if it did, almost certainly didn't happen even remotely the way it is described in the OT?

Fuck it. Exodus didn't happen.

This whole thread is predicated upon bullshit. I'm out. Probably... but it is amusing, in a twisted fashion.

Goldenmane wrote:I'll join in, Largenton.

What Exodus? The one that almost certainly didn't happen? That, if it did, almost certainly didn't happen even remotely the way it is described in the OT?

Fuck it. Exodus didn't happen.

This whole thread is predicated upon bullshit. I'm out. Probably... but it is amusing, in a twisted fashion.

I like these kinds of threads because they illustrate and reinforce the reasons that I decided that 'stupidity' is woefully inadequate, and that a phrase like 'toxic, drooling stupidity' is necessary in order to convey the sense of revulsion and distain that is called for.

DuckPhup wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:I'll join in, Largenton.

What Exodus? The one that almost certainly didn't happen? That, if it did, almost certainly didn't happen even remotely the way it is described in the OT?

Fuck it. Exodus didn't happen.

This whole thread is predicated upon bullshit. I'm out. Probably... but it is amusing, in a twisted fashion.

I like these kinds of threads because they illustrate and reinforce the reasons that I decided that 'stupidity' is woefully inadequate, and that a phrase like 'toxic, drooling stupidity' is necessary in order to convey the sense of revulsion and distain that is called for.

Disdain.

"Distain" could be on "disrug". Then I'd have to find ways of cleaning it off.



But I have a tendency to agree with you.

Maybe I'll take the time to refute this idiocy some time. I'm a little tired of it, though, so I might not. Though I appreciate others doing so. Means I don't have to.

DuckPhup wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:I'll join in, Largenton.

What Exodus? The one that almost certainly didn't happen? That, if it did, almost certainly didn't happen even remotely the way it is described in the OT?

Fuck it. Exodus didn't happen.

This whole thread is predicated upon bullshit. I'm out. Probably... but it is amusing, in a twisted fashion.

I like these kinds of threads because they illustrate and reinforce the reasons that I decided that 'stupidity' is woefully inadequate, and that a phrase like 'toxic, drooling stupidity' is necessary in order to convey the sense of revulsion and distain that is called for.

I rather like "monumentally imbecilic". I know that an imbecile is technically less feeble-minded than an idiot, but I think it sounds more stupid.

hotshoe wrote:

And let's all join in this time EXODUS DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Well, it could have happened, if god cheated

So there

You mean God is such a neat person he swept up all the evidence of the Exodus? And then to really fuck with archaeologists played around with the C14 dates for the cities

I like this Prankster God

As Steve55 already said, if god cheats, how can you tell ?

The funny thing about this Millerite quantum fantasy is that, if you have a cheating god, you have absolutely no way to trust your painstakingly-assembled quantum physics and maths, therefore you cannot use your maths to prove the existence of such a god