Science Suggests That A Quantum Creat...

Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force Might Have Caused Noah's Flood

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#1 Jun 14, 2014
Check out the outstanding confirmation report by Melissa Davey for The Guardian, Thursday 12 June 2014 23.53 EDT, which hints that a quantum creation force might have caused Noah's flood: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/1...
http://everythingimportant.org/creationism/

This discovery most certainly confirms the Scripture that says that the water source for Noah's flood came from within the earth and also rained down from the sky.

Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah痴 life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#2 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Check out the outstanding confirmation report by Melissa Davey for The Guardian, Thursday 12 June 2014 23.53 EDT, which hints that a quantum creation force might have caused Noah's flood: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/1...
http://everythingimportant.org/creationism/
This discovery most certainly confirms the Scripture that says that the water source for Noah's flood came from within the earth and also rained down from the sky.
Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah痴 life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Oh boy.
The very first line in your caboodle: "...current quantum theory where everything happens for no reason whatsoever."

Current quantum theory is NOT implying that everything happens for no reason whatsoever.
After having you corrected on Gould and Eldredge and the Nature article, you just continue to distort and deceive.

Major advice, Eugene: DON'T engage yourself with science, it is not for you.
Science is not for liars and deceivers.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#3 Jun 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Current quantum theory is NOT implying that everything happens for no reason whatsoever.
.
It is the nature of Nature to act unpredictably.

Do you accept that Richard Feynman was an accomplished quantum physicist? According to him, the fundamental reason for something happening is a probability amplitude.

We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible葉hat the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step but no one has found a way to avoid it.
No one has figured a way out of this puzzle. So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever葉hat it is impossible to beat that puzzle葉hat this is the way nature really is. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3, pp. 1-10,1-11.
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#4 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> It is the nature of Nature to act unpredictably.
Do you accept that Richard Feynman was an accomplished quantum physicist? According to him, the fundamental reason for something happening is a probability amplitude.
We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible葉hat the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step but no one has found a way to avoid it.
No one has figured a way out of this puzzle. So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever葉hat it is impossible to beat that puzzle葉hat this is the way nature really is. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3, pp. 1-10,1-11.
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
Current quantum theory is NOT implying that everything happens for no reason whatsoever.
The fundamental reason "something happening is a probability amplitude" is something completely different than "everything happens for no reason whatsoever".
It only says that MANY (not all) things happen due to statistical average at the limit of large systems or large quantum numbers. QM says that there are no physical laws in the classic sense of the word: persistent mechanisms, always happening when all other factors being equal. It emphasizes the STATISTICAL nature of our observations which does not account for "laws" but probability of occurrence.

"We can only predict the odds!"
WRONG.
We can only calculate the chance of occurrence by statistical inference.
To acknowledge that it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen is NOT the same as "everything happens for no reason whatsoever".

"Yes! physics has given up"
No it didn't give up, it just acknowledges that it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen but instead we should use statistical inference based on observations.

"We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance"
WRONG.
QM is only saying that on the nanoscopic scale occurrences are not predictable. It is called the the uncertainty principle: "any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously." For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

On the macroscopic scale we enter the realm of the classic physical laws.
There things are very predictable (in highly probable concordance with the classic physical laws).

AS USUAL you are muddling things up, distorting and misinterpreting.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#5 Jun 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
"We can only predict the odds!"
WRONG.
"We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance"
WRONG.
I see that you were too dishonest to answer my first question: "Do you accept that Richard Feynman was an accomplished quantum physicist?"

Richard Phillips Feynman (/&#712;fa&#618;nm &#601;n/; May 11, 1918 February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World he was ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.

So you're telling me that Turkey Boy knows better than this world-acclaimed theoretical physicist that contributed significantly to the field of quantum electrodynamics. Thanks for proving so conclusively that you are a willfully deceived ignoramus.
Mugwump

Washington, UK

#6 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Check out the outstanding confirmation report by Melissa Davey for The Guardian, Thursday 12 June 2014 23.53 EDT, which hints that a quantum creation force might have caused Noah's flood: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/1...
http://everythingimportant.org/creationism/
This discovery most certainly confirms the Scripture that says that the water source for Noah's flood came from within the earth and also rained down from the sky.
Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah痴 life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
The news article doesn't mention a 'quantum creation force' or anything that could be construed as such.

In other words - it's your usual unsupported nonsense.

Move along, nothing to see here .

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#7 Jun 14, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
The news article doesn't mention a 'quantum creation force' or anything that could be construed as such.
Every fundamental force is a quantum creation force so I can easily see what the article implies even though the author is unaware of it and didn't explain it explicitly.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#8 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Every fundamental force is a quantum creation force so I can easily see what the article implies even though the author is unaware of it and didn't explain it explicitly.
Hey Shoob, since you're a math dude then you should be able to calculate the fact that there's still not enough water for your scenario. Of course you've never let inconvenient facts get in the way of your apologetics before. Of course all you'd really need to do to prove your flood "theory" is provide evidence that the Earth looks something like this:

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2006090301...
Mugwump

Washington, UK

#9 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Every fundamental force is a quantum creation force so I can easily see what the article implies even though the author is unaware of it and didn't explain it explicitly.
Ahhh, so when you said ..
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Check out the outstanding confirmation report by Melissa Davey for The Guardian, Thursday 12 June 2014 23.53 EDT, which hints that a quantum creation force might have caused Noah's flood:

."
You meant to say 'I have voices in my head'

My bad

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#10 Jun 14, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
You meant to say 'I have voices in my head'
You have a direct stereophonic channel. What was the point of me quoting Genesis 7:11? I'll give you a hint: The article is saying precisely what the Bible has recorded.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#11 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You have a direct stereophonic channel. What was the point of me quoting Genesis 7:11? I'll give you a hint: The article is saying precisely what the Bible has recorded.
Funny how the Bible is a useless science book and was absolutely NO help at all in developing a single scientific concept.(shrug)
Mugwump

Washington, UK

#12 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You have a direct stereophonic channel. What was the point of me quoting Genesis 7:11? I'll give you a hint: The article is saying precisely what the Bible has recorded.
Care quote specifically where the article says this - be specific mind - should be simple - cut and paste the words you think support you from the article.

(Crickets not only start chirping, but set up a marachi band)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#13 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I see that you were too dishonest to answer my first question: "Do you accept that Richard Feynman was an accomplished quantum physicist?"
Richard Phillips Feynman (/&#712;fa&#618;nm &#601;n/; May 11, 1918 February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World he was ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.
So you're telling me that Turkey Boy knows better than this world-acclaimed theoretical physicist that contributed significantly to the field of quantum electrodynamics. Thanks for proving so conclusively that you are a willfully deceived ignoramus.
No, I am just saying that Feynman is not saying what YOU say.
I am saying that you are pulling caboodle out of your arse again, as usual.
AS USUAL you don't address NONE of what I posted.
Your only answer is that I am supposed to be of lesser quality in QM than Feynman which I am very happy to confirm. But which isn't relevant at all.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#14 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Check out the outstanding confirmation report by Melissa Davey for The Guardian, Thursday 12 June 2014 23.53 EDT,... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/1...

This discovery most certainly confirms the Scripture that says that the water source for Noah's flood came from within the earth and also rained down from the sky.

Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah痴 life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
The article also seems to confirm what Dr. Walter Brown has been saying for many years.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#15 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text>The article also seems to confirm what Dr. Walter Brown has been saying for many years.
Nothing confirms Walt Brown. Walt Brown is an idiot.

So you're uh... finally firmly throwing your lot in with the YEC's then?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#16 Jun 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
So you're uh... finally firmly throwing your lot in with the YEC's then?
I am not a YEC. It is simply undeniable that
is remarkably similar in content to the cited article.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#17 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I am not a YEC.
Then your position is inconsistent using inconsistent sources.

But don't worry, this is the essence of creationism after all.(shrug)

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#18 Jun 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Then your position is inconsistent using inconsistent sources.
Don't worry. I know how to axiomatize theories and filter out errors. For example, Dr. Walter Brown thinks like a mechanical engineer and, consequently, tries to explain the miracle of the Genesis flood as a mechanistic theory. I reject all that.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#19 Jun 14, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Don't worry. I know how to axiomatize theories and filter out errors.
Only theological ones, not scientific ones.

But thanks for admitting your position is based on utter inconsistency. Of course that doesn't matter in creationism.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#20 Jun 14, 2014
Dr. Walter Brown's mechanistic theory parallels the mechanistic theory of the cited article. I can only start with the primitive level of science as it now exists.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 10 min Fudge 3,464
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 1 hr Fudge 75
Time 2 hr THANKS 9
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr marksman11 164,988
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Frindly 84,105
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr ChristineM 223,191
Alabama people are the Anunnaki Fri Mrs parker science 1
More from around the web