I cannot even understand how these people can just cry "goddidit" without even trying for a rational, logical, scientific explanation. Shubee is just masking his creationism with QM, because he thinks that this will somehow validate his creotard nonsense.

Shubee is just masking his creationism with QM, because he thinks that this will somehow validate his creotard nonsense.

Nailed it in one

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:

Any explanation that can make a mature atheistic physicist squirm is a powerful one. And you can't tell me that I didn't reduce the founder of sci.physics.foundations to an incoherent blob of purely emotional responses by my thesis of quantum creation.

Should we care what people state on a religious forum?

Is sci.physics.foundations a religious forum?

I'll give you another clue. It is a religious forum. We have evidence you enjoy ignoring evidence which does not suit your worldview as you've failed to address practically any of my points. Furthermore, you've used the services of a quote-mining site, suggesting your lack of integrity. Editing points can be believed here.

Oh btw thanks Hotshoe for the quote and context.

And finally for more comedy this is good

Hang on, I'm confused, is this Shubee or Kleinman we're talking about?

Largenton wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:

Any explanation that can make a mature atheistic physicist squirm is a powerful one. And you can't tell me that I didn't reduce the founder of sci.physics.foundations to an incoherent blob of purely emotional responses by my thesis of quantum creation.

Should we care what people state on a religious forum?

Is sci.physics.foundations a religious forum?

I'll give you another clue. It is a religious forum. We have evidence you enjoy ignoring evidence which does not suit your worldview as you've failed to address practically any of my points. Furthermore, you've used the services of a quote-mining site, suggesting your lack of integrity. Editing points can be believed here.

Oh btw thanks Hotshoe for the quote and context.

And finally for more comedy this is good

Comedy gold, too good to resist:

our very own Shubee wrote:Dear Dr. kleinman,

I'm going to assume that you're a genius because I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist. I regret that I'm unable to help you here. Your topic is far beyond my area of expertise. If you know anything about quantum theory, I extend a warm welcome to you to participate in my thread, if you like.

G'd day.

I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist

and the "accused-by-more-than-one" is a fucking lie.

As is readily apparent by reviewing this thread.

One person, argumentativealex, posted this question:

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

NOTE: not an "accusation" and not even a suggestion that Shubee is the same preson as Kleinman, just a question about relationships.

To which articulett responded:

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.

NOTE - articulett's response does not even suggest that Shubee and Kleinman might be the same person

Then, Hotshoe (yep, that's me) added:

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

NOTE: this also makes it clear that Shubee-doobee and Kleinman are two different people with two different piles of shit.

(And the remaining mentions of Kleinman here in Shubee's thread are all in reference to Kleinman's stinkeroo of thread.)

Hell of a stupid thing for a supposed "genius" like Shubee-doobee to do.
Is he so egotistical he didn't think anyone would dare to expose his lie ?
And it's even more stupid when you realize how pointless it was to lie in the first place; he couldn't have possibly gained anything by it, even if it went unchallenged ... after all, what does our dear Kleinman care about our dear Shubee's claims ? Shubee could claim to be god herself and it wouldn't make a dent in the bucket o' tard.

Largenton wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:

Any explanation that can make a mature atheistic physicist squirm is a powerful one. And you can't tell me that I didn't reduce the founder of sci.physics.foundations to an incoherent blob of purely emotional responses by my thesis of quantum creation.

Should we care what people state on a religious forum?

Is sci.physics.foundations a religious forum?

I'll give you another clue. It is a religious forum.

That's hilarious because I have posts that have been rejected by the moderators of sci.physics.foundations for allegedly being too religious in content, all politely returned with a reminder that the charter of sci.physics.foundations stipulates that their discussions are only to be on topics related to pure research in the foundations of physics. My thread at sci.physics.foundations titled, "A Scientific Theory for Creation" was at first rejected but was later approved without change and with an apology from the chief-moderator after I had protested.

Largenton wrote:We have evidence you enjoy ignoring evidence which does not suit your worldview

That's another hilarious comment because your ability to read is so poor that it places you in the Mr. Magoo category of reality where, in effect, all your conversations are basically with yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyWxrHLE14

The problem with demigods is that they pretend to be compendiums of all human knowledge. They never defer to greater authorities and this matches their certainty that God doesn't exist and their certainty that a proof exists for everything they believe. Introducing the question of the wave function for the Red Sea or for an ensemble of a fantastic number of identical particles is enough to humble ordinary human physicists but demigods just get annoyed at the utter simplicity of it or by the observation that someone would dare entertain a thought that differs from their opinions. The most annoying thing about these demigods is their inability to listen and their power to create fantasy out of plain statements so that it conforms to their own reality.

Largenton wrote:Hang on, I'm confused, is this Shubee or Kleinman we're talking about?

I was thinking more like SecondMessiah, considering the wackiness.

Since self-perceived demigods are incapable of dealing with logical arguments, they often engage in tactics that discourage and ruin sensible debate. One subtle tactic that they engage in to derail relevant argument is utter frivolity and accusations of sockpuppetry:

DuckPhup wrote: I'm sort of curious to see how long it will be before you are exposed as a sock puppet this time.

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

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...

argumentativealex wrote: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.

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

PJG wrote:

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!

DuckPhup wrote:

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

I called that back on page 2.

articulett wrote:Don't you find it fascinating that our ape kin share the SAME mutation? What are the probabilities of that, Kleinman... er ... Demski... er Shubee?

Largenton wrote:Hang on, I'm confused, is this Shubee or Kleinman we're talking about?

hotshoe wrote:

Shubee wrote:I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist

and the "accused-by-more-than-one" is a fucking lie.

hotshoe wrote:

Shubee wrote:
I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist

and the "accused-by-more-than-one" is a fucking lie.

Righto, deario,

But I notice you cannot rebut the fact that you chose to lie and your lie was exposed.

Don't you feel bad lying for Jesus ?

hotshoe wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

Shubee wrote:
I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist

and the "accused-by-more-than-one" is a fucking lie.

Righto, deario,

But I notice you cannot rebut the fact that you chose to lie and your lie was exposed.

Don't you feel bad lying for Jesus ?

The demigods must be crazy.

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

Shubee wrote:
I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist

and the "accused-by-more-than-one" is a fucking lie.

Righto, deario,

But I notice you cannot rebut the fact that you chose to lie and your lie was exposed.

Don't you feel bad lying for Jesus ?

The demigods must be crazy.

Crazy fuckers that's for sure. And you're sane? Can we see some examples of your sane ideas please?

Thank you.

pawiz wrote:

Shubee wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

Shubee wrote:
I have been accused of being you on my thread, What's Wrong With Creationism? by more than one all-knowing rationalistic atheist

and the "accused-by-more-than-one" is a fucking lie.

Righto, deario,

But I notice you cannot rebut the fact that you chose to lie and your lie was exposed.

Don't you feel bad lying for Jesus ?

The demigods must be crazy.

Crazy fuckers that's for sure. And you're sane? Can we see some examples of your sane ideas please?

Thank you.

And of course, Shubee totally ignored my lengthy post in the previous page.

Well I prefer being a crazy demigoddess than a nonsensical creotard!

PS. We have a saying in Greece that says:
From crazy persons and children, one learns the truth.

The demigods must be crazy.

"We are as gods and might as well get good at it. "
- W E C

Hotshoe wrote:
One person, argumentativealex, posted this question:

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

NOTE: not an "accusation" and not even a suggestion that Shubee is the same preson as Kleinman, just a question about relationships.

Thanks for that. I am quite familiar by now with Kleinman's particular (peculiar?) inability to understand basic biological concepts of genetics and ecology and I am quite clear that K and S are different people. I did, however, want to draw attention to the way that they both dismiss alternative points of view as an inability to understand the topic in question, whether it be quantum physics or mathematics. K believes that his interpretation of a mathematical model contradicts evolution, and anyone who points out that the model is not widely applicable "does not understand the basic mathematics of mutation and selection"; S believes that his interpretation of theoretical physics shows that God somehow operates at quantum level and that creation/miracles are events with real quantum probability, and anyone who disagrees "doesn't know the first thing about fundamental physics".
In both cases I think that this reveals a deep wish for a particular belief-system to be supported by some aspect of the scientific mainstream without knowing enough about the wider aspects of science to be able to put that into context; any deficiency there is dismissed as a failure of the opposition to understand the topic rather than countered by a reasoned argument.

Shubee wrote:
Since self-perceived demigods are incapable of dealing with logical arguments, they often engage in tactics that discourage and ruin sensible debate.

Do you think that a response that includes the statement "your ability to read is so poor that it places you in the Mr. Magoo category of reality" (to take one example at random) constitutes 'sensible debate'?

I see myself as more of a hemi-semi-demigod.

hotshoe wrote:Well, what Shubee-doobee is too blinded by delusion to notice - that if you can postulate crazy quantum behavior, you have no need of goddidit, but if you postulate goddidit, no way to dress it up as something quantum-ish.

One or the other (OR NEITHER, of course) but NOT BOTH

Other important parts of earth's history that no one has yet proven were NOT caused by quantum shit:

Britney Spears popularity
The formation of the Great Barrier Reef
The delightful connection between how good something tastes and how fat it makes you
The existence of flatulence.

All created by the whacky quantum goodness. Until you prove that they weren't.

Shubee wrote:That's hilarious because I have posts that have been rejected by the moderators of sci.physics.foundations for allegedly being too religious in content, all politely returned with a reminder that the charter of sci.physics.foundations stipulates that their discussions are only to be on topics related to pure research in the foundations of physics.

And you expect us to be shocked? I'm just surprised that they weren't returned for being gibberish. Kudos on at least being sufficiently clear that they were able to write them off as religious claptrap.

Grashnak wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Well, what Shubee-doobee is too blinded by delusion to notice - that if you can postulate crazy quantum behavior, you have no need of goddidit, but if you postulate goddidit, no way to dress it up as something quantum-ish.

One or the other (OR NEITHER, of course) but NOT BOTH

Other important parts of earth's history that no one has yet proven were NOT caused by quantum shit:

Not proof, but explanation:

Britney Spears popularity

Combination of lust for the (apparently) virginal, and the irresistibility of trainwreck-voyeurism.

The formation of the Great Barrier Reef

Plainly came into existence so Doug Adams would have the opportunity to realise that manta rays weren't an option as submarine transport.

The delightful connection between how good something tastes and how fat it makes you

I've met plenty of women who taste wonderful, and it's never made me fat.

The existence of flatulence.

Ah, now, there you've got me stumped. How did a song like that ever make it to the top of the hit parade?


All created by the whacky quantum goodness. Until you prove that they weren't.[/quote]

Grashnak wrote:

Shubee wrote:That's hilarious because I have posts that have been rejected by the moderators of sci.physics.foundations for allegedly being too religious in content, all politely returned with a reminder that the charter of sci.physics.foundations stipulates that their discussions are only to be on topics related to pure research in the foundations of physics.

And you expect us to be shocked?

I expect all sentient beings that are reading this thread to see that if Mr. Magoo Largenton is not a cartoon character, then he is at least more daring than all the other senseless detractors and critics that are posting here, all driven by a religiously inspired motive to derail a sincere debate on my thesis.

Shubee,

Could you answer the question I posed to you? It may have been on another thread, but I do not believe you have answered:

"How could your theory that Goddidit be falsified?"

Shubee wrote:

Grashnak wrote:

Shubee wrote:That's hilarious because I have posts that have been rejected by the moderators of sci.physics.foundations for allegedly being too religious in content, all politely returned with a reminder that the charter of sci.physics.foundations stipulates that their discussions are only to be on topics related to pure research in the foundations of physics.

And you expect us to be shocked?

I expect all sentient beings that are reading this thread to see that if Mr. Magoo Largenton is not a cartoon character, then he is at least more daring than all the other senseless detractors and critics that are posting here, all driven by a religiously inspired motive to derail a sincere debate on my thesis.

Religiously inspired motive? Where did you actually see the religious motive in any of the posters that criticized your thesis? On the contrary, neither one of us is even remotely religious. Speaking for myself, I have rejected religious dogma since I was at least a teenager.

You are not on any religious forum, on the contrary you are on a forum that values clear thinking, away from any religious dogma. We are not to blame if your thesis is problematic, and unclear. Several posters including me have raised questions, which remain unanswered.