|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
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: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shubee Junior Member (Idle past 5692 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
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).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024