Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 1 of 16 (482389)
09-16-2008 12:44 PM


Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
It seems like the biggest problem with Christian creationism is the insistence by most Christians that the Christian God is the agent in the creation process. That's automatically against the rulebook in the game called science. I therefore propose replacing Christian creationism with quantum creationism, which I believe embodies the fundamentals of Christian creationism, yet can be defended as science.
Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (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).
quote:
Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Exodus 14:21
"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided."
The answer to this question is yes. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.
The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe.
Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution. Also, mainstream scientists are starting to lean more and more toward catastrophism. There is hard physical evidence for a global flood catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. And there is good evidence for devolution.
quote:
Indicators for human extinction
Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?
1: Cancer
Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.
2: Immunodeficiency
Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.
3: Heart attacks and strokes
Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.
4: Sperm counts
Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.
Before you comment, please read Message 3 also.
Thanks.
Edited by Shubee, : No reason given.
Edited by Shubee, : Added important request to read the update in Message 3.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-16-2008 3:50 PM Shubee has not replied
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 09-18-2008 7:34 AM Shubee has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 16 (482423)
09-16-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shubee
09-16-2008 12:44 PM


Though you're grouping them under the common label of quantum creationism, you're actually introducing three different topics:
  1. Quantum physics applied at the macro level.
  2. Devolution.
  3. Fossil record created by a global flood.
Please choose one of these topics, then edit your message to address that one topic. Post a note when you're done and I'll take a look.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shubee, posted 09-16-2008 12:44 PM Shubee has not replied

Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 3 of 16 (482730)
09-17-2008 5:25 PM


Hi Percy,
It is true that I asked if quantum physics applied at the macro level. It's also true that I thought that the mathematics of fantastic quantum improbabilities were an acceptable belief in quantum physics. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained quantum improbability to the class. His example was there being a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom suddenly moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I also read that same concept in George Gamow's well-known book, Mr Tompkins Explores the Atom. That link lists some favorable reviews.
A review by SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA said, "Science students will find it worth while for it is definitely a good supplement to a modern physics textbook."
A review by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said, "Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific."
If there are physicists that disagree with the claims about fantastic quantum improbabilities, then that would be a side issue to the question that I'm asking here. For the sake of brevity, I wish to assume the affirming view to be correct. The opinions of dissenting physicists could be the subject of another thread, if you like.
My single question then is, given that some physicists might be correct, that fantastically improbable quantum macro events can happen, would quantum theory be consistent with the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe?
I suppose that I could separate the theory of devolution from the flood postulate but it does relate directly to the fossil record and interprets it.
Ultimately however, I'd like to know if the improbability quantum postulate is consistent with the flood postulate. That's a fascinating postulate. Evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. Hopefully I will learn what indisputable fact prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events.
Edited by Shubee, : I replaced disasters with fantastic catastrophes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2008 7:30 AM Shubee has replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 09-18-2008 8:03 AM Shubee has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 16 (482819)
09-18-2008 7:01 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 16 (482822)
09-18-2008 7:08 AM


A Stipulation about this Thread
Hi everyone!
I've promoted this thread even though I have concerns that it covers too broad a range of topics. As long as it remains focused on Shubee's central issues then no worries, but if discussion bogs down over disagreement about well established scientific principles then because Shubee's issues span several scientific fields I'll close the thread and request that new threads be opened to discuss the specific issues.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 16 (482825)
09-18-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Shubee
09-17-2008 5:25 PM


If I understand correctly you are suggesting that QM renders the creationst claims in question only virtual impossibilities rather than absolute impossibilities.
From a scientific point of view ignoring the evidence on the grounds of a vanishingly small possibility that it might be drastically misleading is a non-starter.
I suppose the real question is not whether this would make creationism scientific - obviously it would not - but whether creationists are desperate enough to use it as an apologetic rather than simply inventing convenient miracles. I would say not, not only because of the weakness of the argument but because it would mean that they would have to give up all improbability based arguments - or be subject to ridicule from everyone who notices the obvious inconsistency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Shubee, posted 09-17-2008 5:25 PM Shubee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 12:09 PM PaulK has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 16 (482826)
09-18-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shubee
09-16-2008 12:44 PM


Simply co-opting quantum physics does not make your creation theory scientific. How does your quantum improbability approach allow for falsification of anything beyond what a traditional 'God did it' creation approach does? If it doesn't then how is it in anyway more scientific?
I think you are mistaken on the basis of why creationism is unscientific. Just hiding god away behind a quantum weirdness curtain doesn't obviate the problems.
Does it not strike you that the probabilities of these quantum events are so improbable, more so by orders of magnitude than all the air molecules in a room knocking a wall down, as to be virtually impossible. Isn't this then a convincing argument that the likelihood of your theory being correct is infinitesimally small? What is causing these unique and highly specific quantum aberrances? As I said before, you haven't removed God at all, just brushed him under the quantum carpet.
And there is good evidence for devolution.
There may be, but that article on telomeres isn't it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shubee, posted 09-16-2008 12:44 PM Shubee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 1:15 PM Wounded King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 16 (482829)
09-18-2008 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Shubee
09-17-2008 5:25 PM


As far as I know, there's no such thing as quantum improbability. I think you must mean quantum uncertainty.
Quantum improbability is the stuff of science fiction. If you want to know about quantum improbability then read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but I don't think it has anyting to do with science.
Quantum uncertainty is a different beast from what your high school science teacher explained, and it has nothing to do with the probability of air molecules in the classroom suddenly moving in unison, which is a probabilistic/statistical issue. Quantum uncertainty says that we can't know both the momentum and position of an atomic or subatomic particle at the same time. The more precisely you measure the momentum the less precisely you can measure the position. And conversely, the more precisely you measure the position the less precisely you can measure the momentum.
Concerning mega-floods, if by "mega-flood" you mean a world wide flood, then there is no scientific evidence for any mega-flood ever, let alone multiple ones.
Concerning the possibility that many ancient catastrophes may have all happened at the same time, this is falsified by radiometric dating alone, not to mention simple stratigraphy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Shubee, posted 09-17-2008 5:25 PM Shubee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 1:34 PM Percy has not replied

Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 9 of 16 (482849)
09-18-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
09-18-2008 7:30 AM


Two Ridiculously Small Probabilities
PaulK writes:
If I understand correctly you are suggesting that QM renders the creationst claims in question only virtual impossibilities rather than absolute impossibilities.
I love the way you phrased that.
PaulK writes:
From a scientific point of view ignoring the evidence on the grounds of a vanishingly small possibility that it might be drastically misleading is a non-starter.
You mentioned possibility. That's a very good place to start. Let's first explore the meaning of probability in the context of what we are actually discussing. I propose that we represent quantum creationism and the theory of evolution with a mathematical model of each. The unimaginable improbability of random molecules just magically assembling themselves into a great variety of living things in, let's say, 3 days, could be represented by an unimaginably large 2-dimensional canvas with pixels of various colors rapidly being added to form an breathtakingly beautiful panoramic mural of exquisite detail. As for the evolutionists, their canvas would be equally large, and their pixels would appear sporadically, in fits and starts, and ultimately take 4x10^11 times longer to fill the canvas.
The mathematical question then is how do we compute the relative probabilities that these two amazing works of art were created out of the inanimate material on this planet?
If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me, from the 5 quarters of probability theory--including 1 graduate course in applied probability theory--that I took at UCSD, that the probability of these two miracles happening is exactly the same fantastically small number.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2008 7:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2008 12:22 PM Shubee has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 16 (482851)
09-18-2008 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Shubee
09-18-2008 12:09 PM


Re: Two Ridiculously Small Probabilities
quote:
I propose that we represent quantum creationism and the theory of evolution with a mathematical model of each
Since that can't be done it seems pointless.
quote:
The unimaginable improbability of random molecules just magically assembling themselves into a great variety of living things in, let's say, 3 days, could be represented by an unimaginably large 2-dimensional canvas with pixels of various colors rapidly being added to form an breathtakingly beautiful panoramic mural of exquisite detail. As for the evolutionists, their canvas would be equally large, and their pixels would appear sporadically, in fits and starts, and ultimately take 4x10^11 times longer to fill the canvas.
However the "evolutionist" model does not rely on the ridiculously improbable events that your model requires.
quote:
If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me, from the 5 quarters of probability theory--including 1 graduate course in applied probability theory--that I took at UCSD, that the probability of these two miracles happening is exactly the same fantastically small number
Ask for your money back. Even if the only difference were the time factor you would still be completely wrong. And if you understood probability theory you would know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 12:09 PM Shubee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 12:56 PM PaulK has replied

Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 11 of 16 (482852)
09-18-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
09-18-2008 12:22 PM


Re: Two Ridiculously Small Probabilities
PaulK writes:
Shubee writes:
I propose that we represent quantum creationism and the theory of evolution with a mathematical model of each
Since that can't be done it seems pointless.
Then from the mathematicians' perspective, the theory of evolution isn't science.
PaulK writes:
Shubee writes:
The unimaginable improbability of random molecules just magically assembling themselves into a great variety of living things in, let's say, 3 days, could be represented by an unimaginably large 2-dimensional canvas with pixels of various colors rapidly being added to form an breathtakingly beautiful panoramic mural of exquisite detail. As for the evolutionists, their canvas would be equally large, and their pixels would appear sporadically, in fits and starts, and ultimately take 4x10^11 times longer to fill the canvas.
However the "evolutionist" model does not rely on the ridiculously improbable events that your model requires.
At least I know that quantum creation is ridiculously improbable. The fact that evolutionists are unable to estimate the probability for evolution doesn't make their view more scientific.
PaulK writes:
Shubee writes:
If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me, from the 5 quarters of probability theory--including 1 graduate course in applied probability theory--that I took at UCSD, that the probability of these two miracles happening is exactly the same fantastically small number
Ask for your money back. Even if the only difference were the time factor you would still be completely wrong. And if you understood probability theory you would know that.
The first mathematical model I thought of assumed Poisson processes and a fantastically small probability p that some inanimate material on this planet could assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. For p being fantastically small I concluded that the probability for evolution was indeed 4x10^11 times greater. The problem for evolutionists is that 4x10^11 times an infinitesimal is still infinitesimal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2008 12:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2008 1:49 PM Shubee has not replied
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2008 1:55 PM Shubee has not replied

Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 12 of 16 (482855)
09-18-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
09-18-2008 7:34 AM


Wounded King writes:
How does your quantum improbability approach allow for falsification of anything beyond what a traditional 'God did it' creation approach does?
I can answer that. Can you give me a mathematically precise definition of falsification? How troubled would you be if it turned out that quantum physics is consistent with the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 09-18-2008 7:34 AM Wounded King has not replied

Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 13 of 16 (482857)
09-18-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
09-18-2008 8:03 AM


The Infinite Improbability Drive
Percy writes:
Quantum improbability is the stuff of science fiction. If you want to know about quantum improbability then read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but I don't think it has anyting to do with science.
It does. It's exactly the same quantum physics that I've been talking about.
Douglas Adams writes:
The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.
... The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability were of course well understood ” and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.
Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this ” partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. ” The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 09-18-2008 8:03 AM Percy has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 14 of 16 (482859)
09-18-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Shubee
09-18-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Two Ridiculously Small Probabilities
Shubee writes:
The problem for evolutionists is that 4x10^11 times an infinitesimal is still infinitesimal.
Perhaps it might help if you introduced the idea of natural selection into your probability calculations. The analogy of random pixels appearing on a canvas over a great deal of time is useless, unless combinations of pixels that help convey meaning to the beholder are selected for.
Incidentally, have you bothered to calculate the probability of your own existence, just starting as far back as from when your 32 great great great grandparents were children?
If you can't do it exactly, would the view that you descended from them become unscientific in the eyes of mathematicians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 12:56 PM Shubee has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 16 (482861)
09-18-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Shubee
09-18-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Two Ridiculously Small Probabilities
quote:
Then from the mathematicians' perspective, the theory of evolution isn't science.
You have an odd idea of what mathematicians consider science.
quote:
At least I know that quantum creation is ridiculously improbable. The fact that evolutionists are unable to estimate the probability for evolution doesn't make their view more scientific.
And the fact that physicists can't estimate the probability of every particle in our solar system ending up where it did doesn't make physics any less scientific.
quote:
The first mathematical model I thought of assumed Poisson processes and a fantastically small probability p that some inanimate material on this planet could assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. For p being fantastically small I concluded that the probability for evolution was indeed 4x10^11 times greater. The problem for evolutionists is that 4x10^11 times an infinitesimal is still infinitesimal.
The problem for you is that the real probability would be finitely small, so the probability would still be 11 orders of magnitude higher. And since your estimate assumes Quantum Creationism, simply given a longer time scale all you are saying is that Old Earth Quantum Creationism is hopelessly bad at accounting for the diversity of life - and Young Earth Quantum Creationism is so improbable that even an improvement of 11 orders of magnitude doesn't help it.
And YECQ needs a whole lot more virtual impossibilities to account for the evidence, so it's even worse than that.
So thanks for proving my point. Your Quantum Creationism is useless even by the low, low standard of creationist apologetics. YECs would have to be completely nuts to waste their time on it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Shubee, posted 09-18-2008 12:56 PM Shubee has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024