Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Shubee

That's a very nicely stated claim. Can you also supply the proof?

Sure, its easy. The Great Flood would require the complete physical displacement, up to and exceeding complete liquefaction of at least the top 5 miles of at least all of the continental surfaces of the Earth. Extremely large earthquakes can cause such liquefaction in pure sandy soils that are already partially hydrated, however the amount of energy required to do this planet wide, not just in sandy soils, would require far more energy than could be produced by any force other than a massive innundation of meteorites. If enough meteorites hit the Earth's surface to provide the requisite energy, even perfectly distributed, it would have resulted in both the complete evaporation of all water on the surface of the earth--ejecting most of it into space--and would have resulted in the entire surface of the earth becoming molten, obliterating all traces of "Pre-Adamite" species.

That's just one approach though: you could try to explain it by gravity weakening to a small fraction of its current value for the length of the deluge (although that would have caused some significant problems for folks on any boat floating in the ocean!), but even then, pure hydrologic soaking will not stir anything beyond the top layer, and there would also have to be an odd effect of the gravitational weakening that would cause layers to be formed in perfect alignment with carbon-14 concentrations, for which there is no known physical force.

We can go on and on like this if you'd like, but the fact is that it is indeed physically impossible to create what we see here in 40-days without breaking physical laws. If you'd like to show how its possible, please do so.

But this is just a sideshow of course, the fundamental flaw is still your first postulate "there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory." This is quite vague, and at the very least requires much more definition. As I read it, it translates into "if there is quantum randomness, then any state of reality is possible *instantaneously*," where--to apply your third postulate--"40 days and 40 nights is sufficiently short to constitute "instantaneous."

We can certainly conceive of *some universe* where the physical laws are such that something like this would happen, but *our universe* certainly has different ones, and *that* universe would look nothing like our own!

But within our own universe, time makes virtually anything possible, and the only thing that you add here is the "Creationist" notion that it was created this way, and nothing came before.

The question then becomes, why is this a necessary postulate? What explanatory power does it add to say that the Earth sprang into being instantaneously?

Originally Posted by Shubee

Have you ever watched the series, The Ascent of Man on TV? Ascent means "movement upward from a lower to a higher state, degree, grade, or status; advancement." That's exactly what many evolutionary scientists teach.

Well, of course the series was almost exclusively about the development of human *culture* and *knowledge* and had almost nothing to say about evolution.

Could you come up with a more relevant citation to try to prove this point? Its quite clearly fallacious, although it is a *frequently used* argument among those who argue against evolution. Again, this is an excellent example of a Straw Man argument.

Originally Posted by Shubee

I prefer to look at the evidence scientifically. To me, the theory of devolution is as certain as the creation of the universe in an initial highly ordered state, which, by all accounts, is unquestionably increasingly decaying toward an inevitable cosmic death.

Do you invest in the stock market? Over the long run it does indeed go up. Over the short-term you see all sorts of "devolution." Over the extremely long run, we'll probably become the next Rome and it will all go to hell in a handbasket....but then then next civilization will come along....what is devolution? You seem to argue that it is a monotonically decreasing function.

I would hope that as a mathematician that you would be able to distinguish between a monotonically decreasing function and a stochastic data set. I hope also you have an appreciation for how functions (in the real word, the physical laws) impose order on stochastic data: add a Poisson distributed data set to a sine wave, and you'll have a pretty jagged sine wave, but Fourier will still find the sine wave!

The notion of "complexity" is that where feedback loops in processes exist, over time, random inputs can change the elemental functions and add new ones by duplication and bifurcation.

These changes can either improve *or* damage the ability of the system to be suited to the *particular environment.*

As an example, fish have the ability to extract oxygen from water by absorbing it. Many fish have evolved very efficient mechanisms to perform this process, but now that they find themselves in heavily polluted environments, those with more efficient gills find they also more efficiently absorb toxins making them *less* well suited to the environment.

I would not digress into this elemental description of evolution except for the fact that you have so badly misstated its key premises.

Originally Posted by Shubee

This thread is about quantum creationism, not mainstream creationist theory.

Fair enough, but given that, you still need to deal with the objection that so far, your postulate *assumes* that "quantum randomness makes any configuration of physical matter possible in 'instantaneous' time scales," a notion that needs to be supported before we can go anywhere.

In the meantime, while "traditional Creationist" arguments might be argued to be off-topic, they are the inevitable next step, because unless you can provide a basis for the "anything is possible instantaneously" argument, then the physical laws that these "traditional" arguments try to explain away, are indeed germane to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Shubee

There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians.

Can you cite one?

Originally Posted by Shubee

I have merely stated three postulates. Can you really prove that no fantastic quantum mechanical explanation exists that might justify the third postulate?

Just to repeat, in order to justify even your first postulate, you must describe how quantum randomness makes anything possible instantaneously: from a purely mathematical viewpoint, you cannot make the effects of the functions that define a model disappear completely, no matter how much stochastic noise is created. I am not making any claim based on improbability here, simply a basic understanding of how interrelated functions in a model interact.

If you really wanted to go somewhere with this, I'd strongly recommend throwing out your second and third postulates for now, and simply deal with trying to prove that anything is always possible.

We gain our ends only with the laws of nature; we control her only by understanding her laws,
Buffy

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Buffy

The Great Flood would require the complete physical displacement, up to and exceeding complete liquefaction of at least the top 5 miles of at least all of the continental surfaces of the Earth. Extremely large earthquakes can cause such liquefaction in pure sandy soils that are already partially hydrated, however the amount of energy required to do this planet wide, not just in sandy soils, would require far more energy than could be produced by any force other than a massive innundation of meteorites. ...

We can go on and on like this if you'd like, but the fact is that it is indeed physically impossible to create what we see here in 40-days without breaking physical laws. If you'd like to show how its possible, please do so.

My guess is that you are using Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7.0 with the default setting, which is set to not let you see any embedded YouTube videos. The second YouTube video in my last post on page 3 answers 'how it is possible' directly.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Could you come up with a more relevant citation to try to prove this point? Its quite clearly fallacious, although it is a *frequently used* argument among those who argue against evolution. Again, this is an excellent example of a Straw Man argument.

The first video in my preceding post clearly shows, according to evolutionists, how man evolved out of ooze in the primordial soup. That's quite a transformation. That was my proof.

[questor]

This argument has been beaten to death because of the attempt to justify Biblical myths, which can't be done. If it were possible by quantum theory to say the flood occurred, it would still have to occur in the time span of man, with enough engineering knowledge to build a boat. Does geology
substantiate this occurrence? If the Red Sea parted, it would have to happen exactly when the Israelites were leaving Egypt. Is there evidence of this?
Why do we continue to attempt to justify the Bible as a true account when
there are so many exaggerations and parables in it?
Why not argue creationism from the standpoint of causality or non-causality? This is where the truth will be found.

[HydrogenBond]

Bible stories served the purpose of creating a lesson. It is loosely analogous to children's fable. I am not saying it is just a fable only it was there to teach a lesson. Relative to the great flood story, the reason it occurred, that is given, is god was mad at the sorry state of humanity. I am only telling the account and not placing any value judgement.

Relative to an ancient person hearing this account, they would be made more cautious about ignoring similar warnings about divine insight. Whatever behavior was included for the punishment of the story, would be resisted with more will power. I am not making a moral judgement only trying to guess how this story would affect the next generation of humans who heard it. They could not go back to the good old days of distorted instinct. The past was washed away in the story and a new path was given with the world refreshed. Noah hand picks the best animals and not the defective and mutant ones. The chosen animals seem to have an instinct for survival and migrate to the ark. The defective animals are eliminated with the defective and mutant humans. This is the lesson. Whether this occurred or not, it had an impact.

Here is an analogy of the debate. We start with the fable of the tortoise and hare. The lesson to be gained is steady perseverance can often do better than a bi-polar attitude of manic and lazy. Not a bad lesson to teach. Science says, we have data that proves that neither rabbits or turtles can talk or organize a race. Therefore, since this is not possible, except with quantum mechanics, the lesson you are trying to teach has no value. We conclude manic/lazy is good as perseverance. This way we don't hurt feelings and get the PC police to boycott further funding to your project. I look at this story, figuratively. It does not conflict with common sense and the science data, but still tells us something about social pushes that helped humanity to evolve.

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Buffy

If you really wanted to go somewhere with this, I'd strongly recommend throwing out your second and third postulates for now, and simply deal with trying to prove that anything is always possible.

That's fair enough. I shall first summarize the fundamental physics of quantum creationism, which is based on the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. And I'll also share how I came to understand the fundamentals of this physical theory.

I was taught quantum improbability in high school. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained it to the class. He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea. My next encounter with the concept of fantastic quantum improbabilities was in the book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by the prominent physicist George Gamow. I was deeply impressed by his representation of quantum improbability in that book. Consider this excerpt:

When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was sitting in before she went into the dining room.

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing. She did not care to argue with father, but this time she felt sure she knew better than he.

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

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."

Presumably therefore, quantum physics is a scientific theory. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory? I believe so.

All the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics are based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the transformation of energy into different forms and its relation to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume. Its underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics. -- Thermodynamics.

I believe I am correct in identifying quantum physics as the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is an approach to thermodynamics situated upon statistical mechanics, which focuses on the derivation of macroscopic results from first principles. ... The statistical approach is to derive all macroscopic properties (temperature, volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the properties of moving constituent particles and the interactions between them (including quantum phenomena). -- Thermodynamics.

I do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible, it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility

You asked for clarification. That's fair enough. I believe that I can make the first postulate of quantum creationism clearer and even make it understandable to a general audience. Consider the following easy-to-understand conversation from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters, which I interpret as a spoof on science and pseudo-science:

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it ceasing instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

It really is true that the fantastic improbabilities explained to me by my high school physics teacher and the excerpt that I quoted from George Gamow's book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, is well-known and well-accepted physics. Shall we dare think about the far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics by taking well-understood conventional physics to its logical conclusion?

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed all around the Earth could end all life as we know it, almost instantaneously. I argue that if all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, then it follows mathematically that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

I wish to make clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the opinions of the general physics community in regard to my theory. As foretold in prophecy, it's an absolute certainty that many respectable physicists will strongly protest my use of quantum physics in a fun application for which they do not approve:

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. — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

It all boils down to a debate between physicists and mathematicians. As I've said before, there are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

[questor]

In your understanding of quantum mechanics, with infinite time there is a possibility for anything to happen...is that correct? Since man has been here only 6-8 million years, isn't there also an equal possibility that during that limited time frame none of the miraculous events claimed occurred? Indeed, isn't it possible that these events never would occur?

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Shubee

He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea.

Why? Why a religious book written by desert people in the Bronze Age?


I'm confused by this argument, is this an accurate simplified version?:

1 in quantum mechanics the location of a particle is described with probabilities
2 Therefore anything is possible
3 Also, Shubee's creation myth/religion of choice is true/real
4 So evolution is wrong and a world flood happened


edit- wasn't sure if I was stating that clearly at first

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by questor

In your understanding of quantum mechanics, with infinite time there is a possibility for anything to happen...is that correct?

Not exactly. I'm saying that when it concerns particles of light or matter in motion, there are no limits to improbability at any time. For example, the Nobel Laureate in physics, Richard P. Feynman, explained in his book, QED, that there is a very small probability for photons (individual particles of light) to move faster than the usual numerical value c, which is just the most likely expected value.

Originally Posted by questor

Since man has been here only 6-8 million years, isn't there also an equal possibility that during that limited time frame none of the miraculous events claimed occurred? Indeed, isn't it possible that these events never would occur?

Yes to both. I believe that those two scenarios are possible outcomes to the equations of quantum theory.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Why? Why a religious book written by desert people in the Bronze Age?

You're saying that you see no similarities between seemingly directed air molecules and supposedly directed water molecules? How is that possible?

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. Exodus 14:21-22.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Shubee

You're saying that you see no similarities between seemingly directed air molecules and supposedly directed water molecules? How is that possible?

Why didn't you immediately think of the prophet Muhammad splitting the moon? Or the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba?
My point is that you thought of a miracle claim made the religion of your region. Why might that be? How is this miracle claim more valid than any other?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Shubee

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

Gamow’s popular science books had a great and formative impact on me a youth – in particular “One, Two, Three...Infinity”, which, like the author of the linked article, I read around the age of 10, and despite understanding only a fraction of its details, practically devoured. Although I didn’t encounter the Mr. Tompkins books until nearly a decade later, and have only read the first two “in paperback” ones, I enjoyed them thoroughly, and recommend them highly.

I think Shubee misreads chapter 9 “Maxwell’s Demon” of “Mr Tompkins in Paperback”. It’s an exploration of statistical temperature fluctuations in gas (or liquids) and the old thought experiment/question/paradox of Maxwell’s demon. These ideas are all classical, not quantum mechanical. Although, as the autobiographical old professor in the story explains, events such as the spontaneous boiling of the surface of a glass of cold water (an iced alcoholic beverage, actually) are so unlikely that observing all of the glasses of cold water that will ever exist in billions of years are unlikely to witness such an event, the probability is much greater than that of a room-temperature macroscopic exhibition of quantum effects.

Moreover, the story doesn’t account an instance of such an vastly unlikely event occurring, but the professor incorrectly believing that he, Tomkins, and Maud had witnessed such an event, when actually a real (and invisible, and quite charming) Maxwell’s demon had caused it to happen.

Also, despite being amusing and educational, the professor incorrectly describes Maxwell’s demon, saying

Maxwell’s Demon is supposed to be rather a fast fellow, and capable of changing the direction of every single molecule in any way you prescribe.

As described by Maxwell and other physicist, however, and importantly, the demon can’t do physical work such as accelerating gas molecules at all, but can only open and close an arbitrarily efficient door to separate fast from slow molecules. The usual thought experiment involves this sorting being used to move a piston, but, as in Gamow’s story, it could as easily involve creating a region of boiling water in a glass of cold water.

Although the Maxwell’s demon thought experiment was originally intended as a paradox suggesting something wrong with the idea, we now know that such a thing is in principle possible, yet doesn’t, as Maxwell believed, violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as Szilard’s engine variant illustrates. (see this post and others for discussion and references to Szilard’s engine)

Most importantly, though, I believe Shubee misunderstands the nature of Gamow’s science popularizations. These are not scholarly works or scientific papers or textbooks, but popularizations, intended to acquaint readers in a whimsical and amusing manner with scientific ideas. As in the above example, the story about a conversation with a trick played by an actual, anthropomorphic Maxwell’s demon is not intended to describe actual reality, but to explore ideas. Unlike the black holes and Big Bang in “One, Two, Three…Infinity”, Gamow is not claiming in “Mr Tompkins” that there really are naturally occurring Maxwell demons, nor even that temperature fluctuations have ever caused the surface of an iced highball to spontaneously boil.