PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Quantum Creationism
       Rethinking Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 07:49 AM on October 18, 2008 :
You obviously do not understand them or even the debate topic. What does the subject line (Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?) mean to you?


And what do you not understand about your complete and utter failure to back up your argument that has stated that the fossil record supports the flood?

My argument didn't descend down to quantum improbability theory. The QIT axiom was present in the opening post.


Read your last post. You stated that you believe that the outcomes we see today are because of an extremely remote and improbable outcome that does violate physics but does so based on quantum principles.

If you disagree with the physics I quoted from Wikipedia, you should become an editor and overturn the prevailing consensus.


Too bad it's not relevant and you're trying to change the subject.

You haven't addressed a single actual point I've made as to why your argument is garbage. In fact you have completely avoided two of my posts entirely that deal with the actual fossil record.


The debate is if quantum creationism is science.


Incorrect. It was. You stated that the fossil record supported a flood. I destroyed that argument. You have yet to provide any rebuttals other then a belief of sheer impossible probability.



The meaning of quantum improbability theory, the first axiom


Explain how that shows how the fossil record supports a global flood. Or admit you are wrong.



By not seeing how easily I have demolished your argument on hydrological sorting, you have clearly demonstrated not understanding quantum improbability theory at the high school level.


Where. Where have you even discussed hydrological sorting. The only place you did you argued essentially that animals were effectively sorted by an intelligent being. I mocked you on that. You then dropped the subject. You have demolished nothing but your own credibility.

You are a big, fat, liar.



(Edited by Obvious_child 10/19/2008 at 03:56 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:55 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 2:45 PM on October 18, 2008 :
Please define science.

Quote from wisp at 9:12 PM on October 18, 2008 :

Hum... The organized structured effort towards a better understanding of the natural phenomena.

Then you will enjoy learning that "one of the big mysteries of the universe" is that the universe began in "an extraordinarily organized state." Consequently, the first axiom of quantum creationism, the proposition that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness, is science.  And I have the backing of mainstream science on that.

It's undeniably clear that Penrose 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.

If a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence, then there is scientific precedent for the hypothesis that a similar quantum miracle at a later time produced all life on earth.



-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 09:20 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence, then there is scientific precedent for the hypothesis that a similar quantum miracle at a later time produced all life on earth.


Your assumption is out of line on many levels. First and foremost, we don't know if reality can materialize out of nothingness. That it did so is one of many hypotheses regarding the origin of the universe, and like the rest of these hypotheses, we don't yet have any means to test (ie: confirm or disprove) it.

Without a sufficient condition to stand upon, your conditional statement falls apart before we even start debating the consequent. For the sake of discussion, though, we can lay aside the problem with your argument above and move on to a fault beyond the conditional's invalidity: its lack of soundness. Just because the material world can pop into existence does not mean life, a highly structured variant of that material world, can also pop into existence. When the universe as we know it began, there was nothing but a lot of very hot hydrogen. It took more than 10 billion years before a small collection of matter had changed into the elements we find here on Earth.

Essentially what you have exercised is the tool of gross oversimplification. No one, from you or I all the way on up to Stephen Hawking, has any idea what quantum behavior is fully capable of, and no one is qualified to say within any area of certainty whether something as structurally complex as life could simply "pop" into existence when we still don't know if even the most basic of material substances can do that either.

Finally, just because something could have popped into existence is by no means evidence that ever did. The improbabilities you're talking about are so astronomically low as to be immeasurable. Quantum improbabilities work at the atomic level; to hypothesize that they could simply have all worked together at a macro level -- a level on par with molecules as large as those required for life -- far exceeds anyone's  working knowledge of quantum behavior (and that includes yours).

Our understanding of chemical behavior above quantum levels has been acceptable evidence for the origin of life for more than half a century. Not only is Obvious Child correct in pointing out that your explanation is not needed here, but when we couple that with your explanation's ridiculous improbability when contrasted to non-quantum natural explanations, you leave the audience wondering whether you even actually believe the words coming out of your mouth.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee:
Quote from Shubee:
Please define science.

Quote from wisp:
Hum... The organized structured effort towards a better understanding of the natural phenomena.

Then you will enjoy learning that "one of the big mysteries of the universe" is that the universe began in "an extraordinarily organized state."
Perhaps it did. Perhaps there are several initial conditions that could end up originating the Universe as we know it, and there's an essential uncertainty (akin to Heisenberg's) about the beginning which can't be blamed on our ignorance.

Entropy tends to grow, yes. You "could" say that the Solar System is less organized now that there are books written in one of it's planets, yes. You could say that a big stone standing is more organized than it's eroded (or carved) byproduct (even if it resembles the Venus de Milo), yes.

There could be infinite universes, for all we know. Yes. The initial condition of one of them could be like last Thursday in our universe. But would that be worth mentioning?

Of the infinite possibilities, why is yours worth mentioning? Because it would suit your sacred book?

Consequently, the first axiom of quantum creationism, the proposition that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness, is science.
Your particular model and it's implications would not help getting a better understanding of the natural phenomena (my definition of science). So, again, no. Not worth mentioning in the context of science (just like speaking about the particular possibility of the last Thursday started Universe).

And I have the backing of mainstream science on that.
No more than it's backing up the last Thursday started Universe.  

It's undeniably clear that Penrose affirms that the universe began in a "highly organized" and "highly ordered" state.
I wouldn't deny what Penrose said. I didn't even deny your idea. I just said that your particular idea is not worth mentioning in the context of science. But i didn't say it isn't nice!

I liked Asimov's The Last Question better though. His best short story, and perhaps the best short story ever (as he put it).

If a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence, then there is scientific precedent for the hypothesis that a similar quantum miracle at a later time produced all life on earth.
You know what i'll say, right?: Not worth mentioning.

Sorry! :S



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:02 AM on October 20, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

If a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence, then there is scientific precedent for the hypothesis that a similar quantum miracle at a later time produced all life on earth.

Your assumption is out of line on many levels. First and foremost, we don't know if reality can materialize out of nothingness.

No. Your misrepresentation of my argument is out of line. The debate, first and foremost, is whether or not the classic big bang model of the universe is science. It's the most popular view of the world's foremost cosmologists. Sir Roger Penrose believes the standard view of cosmology is credible and explains it in the YouTube video, Roger Penrose - Cyclic Universe Model. And in a public lecture by another icon of spacetime physics, Professor Stephen Hawking says, "The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing."

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

That it did so is one of many hypotheses regarding the origin of the universe, and like the rest of these hypotheses, we don't yet have any means to test (ie: confirm or disprove) it.

Anyone can dream up a creation myth. You don't need to be certified as a high priest of physics to do so.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Without a sufficient condition to stand upon, your conditional statement falls apart before we even start debating the consequent.

What is the "sufficient condition" for the big bang myth?

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

For the sake of discussion, though, we can lay aside the problem with your argument above and move on to a fault beyond the conditional's invalidity:

Please define what you mean by "conditional's invalidity".

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Just because the material world can pop into existence does not mean life, a highly structured variant of that material world, can also pop into existence.

True. However, suppose that a highly structured material world can pop into existence. Then the hypothesis that a highly structured variant of that material world can also pop into existence would have at least an infinitesimal amount of support whereas the belief that highly ordered systems can develop gradually would not. Like the big bang, the Cambrian explosion is an evidence of highly ordered systems appearing seemingly instantaneously, not gradually.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Essentially what you have exercised is the tool of gross oversimplification. No one, from you or I all the way on up to Stephen Hawking, has any idea what quantum behavior is fully capable of, and no one is qualified to say within any area of certainty whether something as structurally complex as life could simply "pop" into existence when we still don't know if even the most basic of material substances can do that either.

Try to understand my assertion. I'm saying that my creation myth is just as scientific as the most popular creation myths ever imagined by the high priests of science.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Finally, just because something could have popped into existence is by no means evidence that ever did.

I say again, I'm only arguing that quantum creationism is science.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

The improbabilities you're talking about are so astronomically low as to be immeasurable.

I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Quantum improbabilities work at the atomic level; to hypothesize that they could simply have all worked together at a macro level -- a level on par with molecules as large as those required for life -- far exceeds anyone's working knowledge of quantum behavior (and that includes yours).

I say again, look at the universe. The evidence that supports the big bang is compelling.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Our understanding of chemical behavior above quantum levels has been acceptable evidence for the origin of life for more than half a century.

Understanding chemistry is not evidence for molecular evolution.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 :

Your explanation is not needed here, but when we couple that with your explanation's ridiculous improbability when contrasted to non-quantum natural explanations, you leave the audience wondering whether you even actually believe the words coming out of your mouth.

Your objection is obviously religious; there is no known non-quantum mechanical process that explains either the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Hawking wrote, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (A Brief History of Time, p. 46).




-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 8:40 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shubee

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS THE FLOOD?

Provide it or retract your statement.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 9:44 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 8:40 PM on October 20, 2008 :
I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?


YES!

All else being equal, who in their right mind would pick option B when option A is a trillion times more probable????



PS:  And your estimate for the probability of OOL and evolution is ridiculously low.

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 10:07 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

How many times must you be told, how life began is NOT part of the theory of evolution.
How life first began has nothing to do with the theory  of evolution.  Abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different processes driven by different events.  How can we intelligently discuss evolution with you when you still don't even understand the basics???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:10 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.


Are you trying to scare us with your "big" numbers?  I think it's pretty clear you just made these up, and didn't get them from any actual research.  If i am wrong in assuming this, please post the link.  



You are assuming that the theory of evolution and "quantum creationism" can be expressed as a probability.  This is not necessarily true.  There is no way to test whether evolution is something that could NOT happen given a long enough time.


Anyone can dream up a creation myth. You don't need to be certified as a high priest of physics to do so.


um
So you are saying that anyone could have written the bible?  Or are you saying that theories of the big bang, etc. are equally easy to come up with?  
If it's the latter, then it is simply wrong.  I would like to see you try to even comprehend the physics involved in most of quantum mechanics.

Also, creation =/= Evolution so...



-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:59 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from 0112358132134 at 11:59 PM on October 20, 2008 :

You are assuming that the theory of evolution and "quantum creationism" can be expressed as a probability.  This is not necessarily true.

It can't be said that one model of the universe is better than another competing theory until both models are well understood and tested. That final argument should come after defining what a scientific theory is. Do you understand David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics? The foundation of every mature theory of physics is based on axioms. My first axiom presupposes quantum mechanics. Therefore all of the laws of physics are ultimately probabilistic in the mathematical model of the universe that I have constructed. You are, of course, free to believe that the real world is deterministic but those deeply held religious convictions are not regarded as a credible scientific proposition.

Quote from 0112358132134 at 11:59 PM on October 20, 2008 :

There is no way to test whether evolution is something that could NOT happen given a long enough time.

And there is no way to test whether quantum creationism is something that could NOT happen. However, quantum creationism is based on a clearly understood mechanism whereas trying to believe in an enigmatic mechanism that can gradually modify a single cell through a natural process all the way up to the ineffably beautiful structure that is me, is just a vague fantasy. Consequently quantum creationism is more scientific than the theory of evolution.



-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 12:30 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you're forgetting something - quantum processes work at the sub-atomic level, not at the macro level.  You're trying to project quantum mechanical behavior of sub-atomic particles at the macro level.  Once you reach the macro level (with a mass of atoms and molecules) you have other forces taking over, such as molecular bonding, gravitational forces, electormagnetic forces, nuclear forces, etc.  Quantum creationism becomes nonsense, and cannot happen.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:45 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:45 PM on October 21, 2008 :

I think you're forgetting something - quantum processes work at the sub-atomic level, not at the macro level.  You're trying to project quantum mechanical behavior of sub-atomic particles at the macro level.

You then obviously don't believe in the representation of quantum improbability at the macro level by the prominent physicist George Gamow. If you don't trust the positive reviews the Mr. Tompkins in Paperback book has received, then read the book yourself and see if you can overturn the accepted scientific consensus by getting your opinion published. While you're at it, you should also become an editor at Wikipedia to expunge the physics that I quoted from there on page 1.

Quote from orion at 12:45 PM on October 21, 2008 :

Once you reach the macro level (with a mass of atoms and molecules) you have other forces taking over, such as molecular bonding, gravitational forces, electormagnetic forces, nuclear forces, etc.  Quantum creationism becomes nonsense, and cannot happen.

Why aren't you rewriting the Wikipedia physics articles at this very moment, which support my argument that all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible and ultimately probabilistic? If mainstream physics is correct, then it's easy to see that my argument is logically correct. Any child mathematician can see that. It mathematically follows that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.


-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 2:36 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So much for Shubee supporting his claim that the fossil record supports the flood.

Typical.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 9:04 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:10 PM on October 20, 2008 :

How many times must you be told, how life began is NOT part of the theory of evolution.

Your protest is preposterous because even the general public and many prominent scientists are plenty smart enough to understand that logical conclusions are inseparably connected to evolutionary presuppositions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.


-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 9:05 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 9:05 PM on October 21, 2008 :

Your protest is preposterous because even the general public and many prominent scientists are plenty smart enough to understand that logical conclusions are inseparably connected to evolutionary presuppositions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.


Care to show where in the theory of evolution it discusses abiogenesis?

Furthermore, the video you provided logically concludes by your own argument that astronomy is part of evolution.

Let's all laugh at your asinine argument and beliefs.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:27 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gamov was talking about the Big Bang theory.  The forces present in the universe today did not exist until after the Big Bang, and after the universe cooled down enough to allow the formation of sub-atomic particles and the various forces of nature - electromagnetic, nuclear forces, gravity.

I'm not a physicist, but I do know something about chemistry, and what you propose is pure hogwash.  The geological, astronomical, biological evidence does not support Quantum Creationism.

Quantum Creationism is merely another attempt, like ID, to wrap Creationism into something that sounds like science.  But it's pure baloney.  

If you really want to convice me, point me to a peer-reviewed article on the subject published in a valid scientific journal, such as Science or Nature.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:38 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 12:30 PM on October 21, 2008 :

And there is no way to test whether quantum creationism is something that could NOT happen.


Except that the proposal of creationism (quantum or otherwise) was brought about by a sentient being.  So by definition this being could simply have chosen not to create anything.


Your protest is preposterous because even the general public and many prominent scientists are plenty smart enough to understand that logical conclusions are inseparably connected to evolutionary presuppositions.


It is not preposterous at all.  You are trying to disprove evolution by disproving abiogenesis, this does not work, it would be like trying to disprove creationism by disproving Judaism.  It doesn't work.



-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:24 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shubee - Why aren't you rewriting the Wikipedia physics articles at this very moment, which support my argument that all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible and ultimately probabilistic? If mainstream physics is correct, then it's easy to see that my argument is logically correct. Any child mathematician can see that. It mathematically follows that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.


Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Quantum Mechanics:

Quantum mechanics is the study of mechanical systems whose dimensions are close to the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons and other subatomic particles. Quantum mechanics is a fundamental branch of physics with wide applications. Quantum theory generalizes classical mechanics to provide accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and stable electron orbits. The effects of quantum mechanics become evident at the atomic and subatomic level, and they are typically not observable on macroscopic scales. Superfluidity is one of the known exceptions to this rule.

Note this sentence:
The effects of quantum mechanics become evident at the atomic and subatomic level, and they are typically not observable on macroscopic scales.


That seems to agree with what I was saying above, wouldn't you agree?

Quantum Creationism is nonsense.  You're trying to twist Quantum Mechanics and mumbo-jumbo about quantum probabilities into something that is totally unfounded.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:28 AM on October 22, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 2:36 PM on October 21, 2008 :

You then obviously don't believe in the representation of quantum improbability at the macro level by the prominent physicist George Gamow. If you don't trust the positive reviews the Mr. Tompkins in Paperback book has received, then read the book yourself and see if you can overturn the accepted scientific consensus by getting your opinion published.

Quote from orion at 10:38 PM on October 21, 2008 :

Gamov was talking about the Big Bang theory.

It appears that orion has been so perfectly programmed to not believe in anything miraculous that his brain has short-circuited and is now under the delusion that Gamov's illustrated story of quantum improbability at the macro level is really a reference to the big bang. That's amazing!



When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was sitting in before she went into the dining room.

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing. She did not care to argue with father, but this time she felt sure she knew better than he.

Another proof that orion's mind is possibly under a hypnotic spell or specious programming, if not a dark, unknown, evil influence, is his delusion that the quote he selected from Wikipedia is somehow an argument against fantastic quantum improbabilities. Children, let this be a warning to you. If an atheist tells you that quantum miracles can't happen, run for your life. Remember to always guard your mind at all cost. Otherwise, you may be victimized as fiercely as my critics and detractors have and, like them, finally arrive at the sad point of not even being able to think rationally.


-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:41 AM on October 22, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another proof that orion's mind is possibly under a hypnotic spell or specious programming, if not a dark, unknown, evil influence, is his delusion that the quote he selected from Wikipedia is somehow an argument against fantastic quantum improbabilities. Children, let this be a warning to you. If an atheist tells you that quantum miracles can't happen, run for your life. Remember to always guard your mind at all cost. Otherwise, you may be victimized as fiercely as my critics and detractors have and, like them, finally arrive at the sad point of not even being able to think rationally.


Don't worry -- we stopped taking you seriously long before this post.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:41 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Orion:
Note this sentence:
The effects of quantum mechanics become evident at the atomic and subatomic level, and they are typically not observable on macroscopic scales.

That seems to agree with what I was saying above, wouldn't you agree?
No, because Shubee will agree with me that he's not talking about something typical, but merely possible.

There's a number that represents the odds of all the coins in the world falling tails.

But i maintain my point about his "possibility": Not worth mentioning (not in the context of science). And if that was science, perhaps it would be the most dishonest science ever.

And i repeat my reason: it would NOT give us any intellectual advantage. It wouldn't help our understanding of the natural phenomena nor allow us to make any predictions about anything we can observe. And THAT's what science deals with.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:23 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good!  then we all agree (exept for Shubee) that Quantum Creationism is nonsense.

Let's call it for what it really is.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:31 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from 0112358132134 at 11:24 PM on October 21, 2008 :

You are trying to disprove evolution by disproving abiogenesis

Who's your programmer? You are as gifted as orion in fabricating and believing absolute untruths. Are you in a race to outdo that one famous fictitious character that is able to imagine six impossible things every morning before breakfast?


(Edited by Shubee 10/23/2008 at 10:13 AM).


-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:07 AM on October 23, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 07:02 AM on October 20, 2008 :

Your particular model and it's implications would not help getting a better understanding of the natural phenomena (my definition of science).

wisp, your definition of science is unworkably vague and seemingly confused. No mature science can be based on imprecision. You need to define natural phenomena clearly and unambiguously.

Quote from wisp at 5:23 PM on October 22, 2008 :

Shubee will agree with me that he's not talking about something typical, but merely possible.

But i maintain my point about his "possibility": ... if that was science, perhaps it would be the most dishonest science ever.

Quantum creationism is a transparent, scientific theory based on a clearly understood mechanism for the origin of life on earth. Fundamental laws of physics support it. Darwinism is a dishonest non-science.

Quote from wisp at 5:23 PM on October 22, 2008 :

And i repeat my reason: it would NOT give us any intellectual advantage. It wouldn't help our understanding of the natural phenomena nor allow us to make any predictions about anything we can observe. And THAT's what science deals with.

What quantifiable predictions ever followed from the hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor? How many of those quantifiable predictions were subsequently verified? And what percentage of those subsequently verified predictions confirms the idea that descent with modification has added to the genetic complexity of life?



-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:01 PM on October 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp:
Your particular model and it's implications would not help getting a better understanding of the natural phenomena (my definition of science).
wisp, your definition of science is unworkably vague and seemingly confused. No mature science can be based on imprecision. You need to define natural phenomena clearly and unambiguously.
No i don't. Here's why: Your particular model and it's implications would not help getting a better understanding of ANYTHING.

Quote from wisp:
Shubee will agree with me that he's not talking about something typical, but merely possible.

But i maintain my point about his "possibility": ... if that was science, perhaps it would be the most dishonest science ever.
Quantum creationism is a transparent,
So far so good...
scientific
Not at all.
theory
A theory? Does it provide any intelectual advantage? Does it make any predictions? Is it testable in any way?
based on a clearly understood mechanism for the origin of life on earth.
What mechanism would that be??? You don't mean "quantum creationism", because you'd be saying that quantum creationism is based upon itself... So what do you mean?

Fundamental laws of physics support it.
Again, no more than the theory of last thursday creation.

Darwinism is a dishonest non-science.
"Darwinism" doesn't exist.


Quote from wisp:
And i repeat my reason: it would NOT give us any intellectual advantage. It wouldn't help our understanding of the natural phenomena nor allow us to make any predictions about anything we can observe. And THAT's what science deals with.
What quantifiable predictions ever followed from the hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor?
That's "just" a hypothesis. I personally don't believe it.
How many of those quantifiable predictions were subsequently verified?
None (at least none that belongs just to this particular hypothesis). It's a nice hypothesis, but i don't buy it.
And what percentage of those subsequently verified predictions confirms the idea that descent with modification has added to the genetic complexity of life?
Huh?

Look, i'll quote from wiki:

It is possible that all of LUA's contemporaries became extinct and only LUA's genetic heritage lived to this day. Or, as proposed by Carl Woese, perhaps no individual organism can be considered a LUA, but the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.
This is what i personally believe.

As for "descent with modification", there's evidence everywhere. Happens all around us. You can test it within very few generations.

Again, your story is not science. Science-fiction, maybe.


(Edited by wisp 10/24/2008 at 7:10 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 :

Quote from Shubee at 11:01 PM on October 23, 2008 :

Quote from wisp at 07:02 AM on October 20, 2008 :

Your particular model and it's implications would not help getting a better understanding of the natural phenomena (my definition of science).

wisp, your definition of science is unworkably vague and seemingly confused. No mature science can be based on imprecision. You need to define natural phenomena clearly and unambiguously.

No i don't. Here's why:

The reason why you decline to define science yet claim the prerogative to accuse me that my axiom set together with David Hilbert's philosophy of physics isn't science is to hide the provable incompetence and hypocritical inconsistency of Darwinists. I love David Berlinski's insightful thoughts on this frequently observed phenomenon. He wrote, "[Darwinists] are often languid in argument, and they attend to the deficiencies of one another's work with the studied elegance of men who keep silk handkerchiefs in their sleeve" (The Devil's Delusion, p. 107).  

Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 :

Your particular model and it's implications would not help getting a better understanding of ANYTHING.

I can easily prove your incompetence and hypocrisy if you would answer questions. That would be a better understanding than you possess. As it is, you choose to entrench yourself behind willful ignorance and remarkable self-deception.

Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 :

Quote from Shubee at 11:01 PM on October 23, 2008 :

What quantifiable predictions ever followed from the hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor?

That's "just" a hypothesis. I personally don't believe it.

The contradiction of believing in Darwinism while repudiating Evolution 101 is not an answer. I'm challenging Darwinism, not wispism.

Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 :

Quote from Shubee at 11:01 PM on October 23, 2008 :

What percentage of those subsequently verified predictions confirms the idea that descent with modification has added to the genetic complexity of life?

Huh? ... there's evidence everywhere.

Your profound inability to understand a simple question is evidence for devolution. Thanks for confirming my second postulate.




-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 12:59 AM on October 25, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 :

Quote from Shubee at 11:01 PM on October 23, 2008 :

Darwinism is a dishonest non-science.

"Darwinism" doesn't exist.

Then I'm free to define it. Note that Evolution 101 exists and is hosted on the berkeley.edu server.

Definition: Darwinism is Evolution 101. What does that webpage teach? "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor." "Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

Here is a vivid illustration of Darwinism: COSMOS - Clip 5: "Human Evolution Animation"

Darwinists believe in Darwinism as a religion and hypocritically pretend it's a scientific theory. It doesn't satisfy their definition of science.

I know of no creationist that rejects descent with modification. I strongly believe in descent with modification. That doesn't make me a Darwinist.

The fact that Darwinists don't even have the vocabulary to distinguish between Darwinism and descent with modification proves that the whole field is dominated by muttonheads.

(Edited by Shubee 10/25/2008 at 12:31 PM).

(Edited by Shubee 10/25/2008 at 12:34 PM).


-------
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?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:35 AM on October 25, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still no evidence by Shubee to support his claim of the fossil record supporting the flood.



(Edited by admin 10/26/2008 at 07:04 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:15 PM on October 25, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll have to ask again...

based on a clearly understood mechanism for the origin of life on earth.
What mechanism would that be??? You don't mean "quantum creationism", because you'd be saying that quantum creationism is based upon itself... So what do you mean?

The reason why you decline to define science
I didn't decline to define it. I just didn't define "natural phenomena". My definition of science isn't complete, but it's more than enough in this particular case. But seemingly no matter what definition i give you, you'll ask me to define words of the definition, and words of the definition of the words of the definition...

yet claim the prerogative to accuse me that my axiom set together with David Hilbert's philosophy of physics isn't science
Why not? Your "axiom" is pointless.

An axiom is something you BEGIN with. And where would you go starting from your "axiom"?

set together with David Hilbert's philosophy of physics
I don't care. Not worth mentioning. Pointless. Your "axiom" is absolutely capricious.

You want me to define that?
Capricious: Determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason.


I can easily prove your incompetence and hypocrisy if you would answer questions.
And why would you do that, instead of gently explaining what would your "axiom" be good for?

♫What is it good for? ♫
♫Absolutely nothing. ♫

is to hide the provable incompetence and hypocritical inconsistency of Darwinists.
Darwinist? Let me look that word up... "Word not found". Sorry. Your English is far better than mine. And that of my dictionary (WordWeb).

The contradiction of believing in Darwinism while repudiating Evolution 101 is not an answer.
I'm not claiming that darwinism even exists. It's you who's doing that. So don't say i'm the one that believes in darwinism.

I'm challenging Darwinism, not wispism.
HAHAHA! Good luck with that. But this forum is about creationism and evolution. Not "darwinism".

Your profound inability to understand a simple question is evidence for devolution.
Was your question simple? I mean, you're asking me to defend your "darwinism"?

The fact that Darwinists don't even have the vocabulary to distinguish between Darwinism and descent with modification proves that the whole field is dominated by muttonheads.
Show me a darwinist.

Does knowing what Darwin found make me a darwinist? Am i also a Pythagorist?  

Now, stop attacking darwinists (whatever they may be) for a moment, and try to defend your "axiom".

PS: Where's your evidence for the flood?


(Edited by wisp 10/26/2008 at 12:37 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:35 AM on October 26, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.