Creationists Urge Texas Ed Board to 'Strike the Final Blow to the...

There are 292 comments on the Dallas Observer story from Sep 18, 2013, titled Creationists Urge Texas Ed Board to 'Strike the Final Blow to the.... In it, Dallas Observer reports that:

Don McLeroy, a Bryan dentist and former Texas State Board of Education Chairman who made a star turn as the anti-science Sunday school teacher in last year's "The Revisionaries" , was unseated from the board in the 2010 Republican primary.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Dallas Observer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#183 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Let's start with the most firmly established empirical axiom first. Do you accept mainstream quantum mechanics and, in particular, what mainstream physicists teach about spontaneous quantum creationism?
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
Hey shooby dooby doo. No one is going to go to your bogus site.

Do you think that you can link a legitimate site that supports your claims? A simple no or inability to do so is very strong evidence that you are wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#184 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Scientific facts change all the time. Sadly, many have a difficulty understanding that all conclusions depend upon presuppositions.
No, facts are facts. It is our interpretation of the facts that may be wrong and may be changed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#185 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Let's start with the most firmly established empirical axiom first. Do you accept mainstream quantum mechanics and, in particular, what mainstream physicists teach about spontaneous quantum creationism?
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
"spontaneous quantum creationism". Too freaking funny.

Rather odd that the only mention of this on the entire internet comes from only one fruitcake: Shooby Doo

Try to contain your shock.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#186 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Scientific facts change all the time. Sadly, many have a difficulty understanding that all conclusions depend upon presuppositions.
the irrefutable, verifiable fact that there was no Noachian flood will not change.

you just proved that both your god, and jesus were incorrect about this proven fact.

you worship a false idol created by your cult.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#187 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Let's start with the most firmly established empirical axiom first. Do you accept mainstream quantum mechanics and, in particular, what mainstream physicists teach about spontaneous quantum creationism?
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
I googled "Spontaneous quantum creationism", and was referred to 3 entries. All of them by you.

https://www.google.com/#q=%22spontaneous+quan...

So to answer your question: "No. I do not accept your interpretation on quantum mechanics".

Time for your meds now.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188 Nov 11, 2013
i bet god erased all the other references...ya know, just to keep the mystery alive.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#189 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
facts are facts. It is our interpretation of the facts that may be wrong and may be changed.
I agree. And even scientific facts can and do change. Isn't that what I said?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#190 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I agree. And even scientific facts can and do change. Isn't that what I said?
yet the fact that your proven false god(s) lied about the Noachian flood will not change, will it?

no, it will not.

reality is fun!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#191 Nov 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I googled "Spontaneous quantum creationism", and was referred to 3 entries. All of them by you.
https://www.google.com/#q=%22spontaneous+quan...
Obviously, no self-loving, God-hating atheist is going to buck tradition and use a phrase invented by me, a quantum creationist, because "creationism" has become a derogatory word. However, if you are aware of what credible, mainstream physicists are saying, then you should know that that there are plenty of respected world-class physicists that are quantum creationists in every particular except the label.

For example, Professor S.W. Hawking wrote:

"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-u...

And here is Professor Hawking presenting his version of spontaneous quantum creation[ism] publicly:


In addition, here's an amusing little anecdote that recalls how the world cheered that history making event:

"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/806

Incidentally, I was a quantum creationist long before Stephen Hawking was.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#192 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Obviously, no self-loving, God-hating atheist is going to buck tradition and use a phrase invented by me, a quantum creationist, because "creationism" has become a derogatory word. However, if you are aware of what credible, mainstream physicists are saying, then you should know that that there are plenty of respected world-class physicists that are quantum creationists in every particular except the label.
For example, Professor S.W. Hawking wrote:
"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-u...
And here is Professor Hawking presenting his version of spontaneous quantum creation[ism] publicly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xhNX1wKFbB0XX
In addition, here's an amusing little anecdote that recalls how the world cheered that history making event:
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/806
Incidentally, I was a quantum creationist long before Stephen Hawking was.
I will grant you that Hawking did promote "quantum creation" (2007).

I'm also sure that you will admit that Hawking is an Atheist.

So cherry-picking half of his argument ("quantum creation") without regard to the OTHER HALF of his position that God is not necessary FOR this "creation" is dishonest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#193 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I agree. And even scientific facts can and do change. Isn't that what I said?
No! Are you brain damaged? I said our *interpretation* of the facts may change. That is NOT what you said. We do not agree.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#194 Nov 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I will grant you that Hawking did promote "quantum creation" (2007).
I'm also sure that you will admit that Hawking is an Atheist.
So cherry-picking half of his argument ("quantum creation") without regard to the OTHER HALF of his position that God is not necessary FOR this "creation" is dishonest.
As I said before, I was a quantum creationist long before Professor Hawking became a quantum creationist. So you are dishonest. As for who was the first quantum creationist, that’s anyone’s guess, but here is a discussion thread where I tell the story of how I became a quantum creationist while still in high school, which was a few years before Steven Hawking even began to study quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.
everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism
So your accusation of me cherry-picking is just plain silly.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#195 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Obviously, no self-loving, God-hating atheist is going to buck tradition and use a phrase invented by me, a quantum creationist, because "creationism" has become a derogatory word. However, if you are aware of what credible, mainstream physicists are saying, then you should know that that there are plenty of respected world-class physicists that are quantum creationists in every particular except the label.
For example, Professor S.W. Hawking wrote:
"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-u...
And here is Professor Hawking presenting his version of spontaneous quantum creation[ism] publicly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xhNX1wKFbB0XX
In addition, here's an amusing little anecdote that recalls how the world cheered that history making event:
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/806
Incidentally, I was a quantum creationist long before Stephen Hawking was.
You're just a loony. That's why you can't get any of your 'ground breaking' papers published.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#196 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> As I said before, I was a quantum creationist long before Professor Hawking became a quantum creationist. So you are dishonest. As for who was the first quantum creationist, that’s anyone’s guess, but here is a discussion thread where I tell the story of how I became a quantum creationist while still in high school, which was a few years before Steven Hawking even began to study quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.
everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism
So your accusation of me cherry-picking is just plain silly.
perhaps you should go back to discussing how the two speaking pair of your god trilogy have both been caught out in proven lies....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#197 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> As I said before, I was a quantum creationist long before Professor Hawking became a quantum creationist. So you are dishonest. As for who was the first quantum creationist, that’s anyone’s guess, but here is a discussion thread where I tell the story of how I became a quantum creationist while still in high school, which was a few years before Steven Hawking even began to study quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.
everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism
So your accusation of me cherry-picking is just plain silly.
Dumbass.

I never speculated or suggested who was the first "Quantum Creationist".

My point is, you invoke Stephen Hawking as *A* Quantum Creationist -- which he is -- in order to lend a shadow of legitimacy to your own philosophy, WITHOUT also acknowledging that Hawking IS, and HAS BEEN an ATHEIST.

Hawking never invoked a supernatural entity with Creation, but you use him (Hawking) to bolster your own personal philosophy that PRESUPPOSES this Deity.

THAT is your dishonesty. NOT "who claimed Quantum Creation" first.

(Hawking):“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#198 Nov 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumbass.
I never speculated or suggested who was the first "Quantum Creationist".
My point is, you invoke Stephen Hawking as *A* Quantum Creationist -- which he is -- in order to lend a shadow of legitimacy to your own philosophy, WITHOUT also acknowledging that Hawking IS, and HAS BEEN an ATHEIST.
Hawking never invoked a supernatural entity with Creation, but you use him (Hawking) to bolster your own personal philosophy that PRESUPPOSES this Deity.
THAT is your dishonesty. NOT "who claimed Quantum Creation" first.
(Hawking):“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
Well, his god(s) openly lie, why shouldn't he?

i truly think this is why we find the religous to be so dishonest. their entire world view is based on known and proven lies, so there is no reason for them to be honest.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#199 Nov 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I will grant you that Hawking did promote "quantum creation" (2007).
I'm also sure that you will admit that Hawking is an Atheist.
So cherry-picking half of his argument ("quantum creation") without regard to the OTHER HALF of his position that God is not necessary FOR this "creation" is dishonest.
You also make a serious error in thinking that the thesis of Professor S.W. Hawking cited above contains more than a particle of scientific originality. It doesn't. It's merely Hawking's attempt to advance atheism via dressing up his goofball assertion with scientific jargon. Roger Penrose is on the record saying that in essence. Furthermore, it's easy for just about anyone trained in mathematics to see that I rip Hawking's atheistic argument to pieces with my proof of The First Fundamental Theorem of Molecular Creationism.
http://everythingimportant.org/quantumcreatio...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#200 Nov 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I never speculated or suggested who was the first "Quantum Creationist".
Who said that you did? You obviously didn't even know that quantum creationism is a legitimate science.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#201 Nov 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You also make a serious error in thinking that the thesis of Professor S.W. Hawking cited above contains more than a particle of scientific originality. It doesn't. It's merely Hawking's attempt to advance atheism via dressing up his goofball assertion with scientific jargon. Roger Penrose is on the record saying that in essence. Furthermore, it's easy for just about anyone trained in mathematics to see that I rip Hawking's atheistic argument to pieces with my proof of The First Fundamental Theorem of Molecular Creationism.
http://everythingimportant.org/quantumcreatio...
See?

There you go being dishonest again!

You had no REAL reason to invoke Stephen Hawking's name -- due to that fact that he's an Atheist -- other than to claim that the world's most well-known theoretical physicist happens to use the same general terminology.

Ask yourself: Why *DID* you bring up Hawking if you don't agree with his philosophy?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#202 Nov 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:

I never speculated or suggested who was the first "Quantum Creationist".
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Who said that you did?
You did. Here....:
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> As I said before, I was a quantum creationist long before Professor Hawking became a quantum creationist. So you are dishonest. As for who was the first quantum creationist, that’s anyone’s guess, but here is a discussion thread where I tell the story of how I became a quantum creationist while still in high school, which was a few years before Steven Hawking even began to study quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.
everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism
So your accusation of me cherry-picking is just plain silly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Chimney1 162,188
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 18,907
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 4 hr DanFromSmithville 1,732
No Place For ID? 9 hr Dogen 116
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 12 hr Kong_ 20
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 hr Dogen 141,291
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 13 hr emrenil 897
More from around the web