Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

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.

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.

I love the way you phrased that. 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.

Then from the mathematicians' perspective, the theory of evolution isn't science. 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. 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.

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?

It does. It's exactly the same quantum physics that I've been talking about.