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).

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.

Shubee

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

This is still Creationism, regardless of what coat rack you hang it on.

The Red Sea division is a myth with no bearing on the existence of the universe. Quantum theory does not really apply to things like myths.

Moving this to Theology, although it really belongs in Strange Claims.

How anything can be made a scientific theory, though not necessarily a correct one
 

The problem with this, as a formal definition, is that “improbability” isn’t a formal mathematical term. Rather, “improbable” is a context-specific or informal synonym of “having a low probability”. It’s odd and not useful to describe the “improbability” of an event, because it’s at best the same as describing the probability of an event, or .

The bigger question of this thread, however isDetails aside, anything can be made into a scientific theory by expressing it as an understandable (to a given target audience, who may have very specialized language and skills) collection of techniques for generating predictions of experimentally verifiable outcomes. To be a correct theory, predictions must be made, experimentally tested, and found to be correct.

So to make a specific form of creationism (the term has many meanings, so requires more specific definition) into a scientific theory, one need only use it to make predictions. For the theory to be correct, experimental test of these predictions must find them correct.

This has been done many times for various forms of creationism. Young Earth creationism, for example, predicts that measurements of the age of animal and human remains should find no animal remains more than two days older than the oldest human remains, and that nothing whatever should be measured to be older than about 10,000 years. When tested with techniques such as examining fossil and radiometric dating, however, these predictions fail, so, as a scientific theory, young Earth creationism is not correct.

It is correct that the formalism of quantum mechanics describes the position and other attributes of particles of matter as a range of values related to probabilities. So, for any given particle, the probability that if will be detected within a volume arbitrarily distant from its most probable location, while very small, is non-zero. The probability that many particles would be detected in low-probability locations preserving their relative positions - ie: that the water of the Red Sea would be detected not in a parted path across it, yet still be water, not steam, or plasma, or a storm of rapidly decaying exotic particles - is many time less probable than for a single particle - a reasonable if simplistic estimate is , where is the number of particles. Because is very large, is very, very small.

I’ve not attempted to estimate these miniscule probabilities. As the idea’s champion, however, this sounds like a task for Shubee. ;) Shubee, explicitly making whatever assumptions and guesses you need, linking to any reference material you use, and showing your calculations, what do you calculate for the probability of the spontaneous parting of the Red Sea (or an easier-to-describe body of water)? :QuestionM

Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science. I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

"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."

Do you see any obvious contradiction in quantum creationism when I add to my first axiom (quantum theory) my second and third axiom?

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Probability and quantum mechanics opens the door to anything. So there is a finite probability that Shubee is correct. 

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

For those of you who want to know, David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics basically boils down to the proposition that Physics should be dealt with entirely with abstract Mathematics, which is somewhat parallel to the division that has grown within the Physics community between Theoretical and Applied/Experimental Physicists.

As a result, Hydro's statement that:
is certainly relevant, but unfortunately does not at all make the problem with Shubee's first postulate go away.

What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis."

To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."

"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."

But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:

If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" because the decrease in frequency with different layers must have an explanation), uplifting of mountains that maintain the layers (in spite of the fact that the Bible claims no earthquakes or other major deformations of land at the same time as the great flood), and morphological progression evidenced in the layers (which are not explained by various "density of bones" theories common among Creationists), as well as many others.

In order to resolve these issues, a simple incredible stroke of luck that makes the great-flood a *possible* explanation is not enough, it requires the violation of known physical laws. These are not issues of improbability, but rather mathematical models providing clear contradictions that even Hilbert would agree with!

To put it more clearly, we're not even talking about a tornado in a junkyard, we're talking about say, gravity disappearing instantaneously, and then reappearing.

This would require a call to divine intervention, and thus make it by definition outside the realm of science.

Until you guys address this, I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere here.

Just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass, :phones:
Buffy

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.

For remarkable evidence that supports the theory of devolution and its direct observation in nature, see the article: Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com.

Note that the article states: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."

And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.

As for evidence that supports my third postulate, I'm very impressed by the utter simplicity of the observation that many petrified trees in the fossil record extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock.

Quantum indeterminancy is only a related concept. And quantum theory does make creationism possible. Physicists already admit that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence.


It's not astoundingly improbable. Evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. I think it's highly likely that there is no clear and indisputable fact that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events.

I learned the answer to that in a college intro course covering earth science and astronomy. The teacher was an avowed atheist. He explained that carbon-14 age has to be calibrated because the difference between carbon-14 age and tree-ring age increases as you go back in time. The comparison was shown graphically to the class in a slide presentation. Interestingly enough, there was less and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere as you go back in time. I understood the implications mathematically. Projecting carbon-14 availability from the known rapidly descending curve against tree-ring age implies that a carbon-14 test for anything beyond 20,000 years ago would appear virtually infinitely old. Accurate carbon-14 age determination is only as good as the oldest trees on earth if you make the usual adjustments. Anything beyond that limit is a guess.

Recall That The Universe Is Only 14 Billion Years Old
 

I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

Shubee

Re: Recall That Suppositions are just that
 

Look at it this way:
Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/100,000 for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^1 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

;)

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

To anyone who hasn't seen this yet, here is a list of specific creationist claims, and refutations of them:
An Index to Creationist Claims

Some of the refuted claims have been made/mentioned in this thread. It might save everyone time to read and review before getting into any crazy arguments.

To be clear, you're saying you believe that some religious MD who runs his own website has therein provided sufficient refutation of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed, published evidence spanning the fields of geology, paleontology, and genetics(to name a few).
You have to understand that this is an incredibly extraordinary claim to make. Especially given that the author of the website supports many fringe theories such as the religious pseudoscience of Michael Behe, which has been (almost unanimously) rejected by the science community and legal system as such.

Also of interest, 29+ evidences for macroevolution(heavy citation here):
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Re: Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

My problem with the "scientific creationism" idea less to do with the probabilities of the Red Sea parting as it does with the Red Sea parting on command. It's bad enough that the universe will not exist long enough for this to have happened at random but for it to have happened at the precise moment the Israelites needed it to is many order of magnitude less probable. 

Are All of The Mathematical Implications of Quantum Physics Science?
 

You're not even close to grasping my meaning. Buffy understood my intent almost perfectly. I'm asking a question:

Suppose we take the view that quantum physics is science. 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 have very little respect for Michael Behe as a defender of creationism. My purpose in citing The Fossil Record was to present a visual representation of my third postulate:

These statements were meant to convey the idea that however fantastically improbable quantum creationism may be when I adjoin to standard quantum physics my second and third postulate, I really do believe that my three-pronged axiomatized system is consistent and therefore meets the definition of science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Please understand that I'm not trying to prove quantum creationism true. I'm only trying to prove that quantum creationism is a logically consistent science. Just think of it as a word game that mathematicians like to play.

Correct. And you are probably aware that Hilbert's philosophy of mathematics has been summarized by the well-known attribution: "Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper."

re: Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

The most widely accepted definition of science is the one I gave above: a process of theory (AKA explanation) being used to make predictions which are tested (AKA validated or falsified) by experiment.There is a critical flaw with this approach: Hilbert’s approach to math, and by extension, physical science, generally known as formalism, is based on the assumption that a formal mathematical system isomorphic to physical reality that is complete, consistent, and decidable, exists. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that this assumption is untrue, not only for a fully reality-describing formal system, but even for a simpler system with a finite alphabet and the usual arithmetic operations.

This is certainly not to say that formalism is ineffective or bad, but rather that it is not innately superior to less than fully mathematically formal processes, but rather is practically useful as a tool in less formal processes. Though you’d be had pressed to find a more ardent proponent of formalism than me, even I stop short of agreeing with Shubee’s preference for formalism over experimentally verified science.

Another problem with formalism, which I and everyone I’ve read or spoken to with practical experience with formalism acknowledge, is that it’s very difficult. If one insists on accepting and applying only formally proven propositions, one would be incapable of practically any application of knowledge. Even with modern computer resources and personal genius, the amount of time necessary to follow Hilbert’s program to a point where this were not the case would likely take more than a human lifetime, which is beyond the bounds of most humans’ patience.There are at least a couple of problem with this approach.

First, in a mathematically formal sense, there are not axioms, because they are not described in terms of an enumerated collection of terms (an alphabet) and operations within some formal system. This requirement is difficult to explain tersely - to understand it, if the reader does not already, I recommend reading chapter 14 of Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, and its supporting internal and external referenced.

Second, there is a well-know gap in the knowledge domain of quantum mechanics and disciplines such as biology, paleontology, and geology. Even using the best present approximation methods and computer resources, we are not able use rigorous quantum mechanical formalism to describe even a single living cell. While quantum mechanics has provided interesting intuitive speculations into at least neurology (eg: Penrose’s “physics of consciousness”), present-day techniques and resources appear far from able to support a practical theory of “quantum biology”, etc.

If a theory of “quantum Darwinian evolutionary biology” in presently unfeasible, so is a theory of “quantum creationism”.

Support for suppositions?
 

Without evidence supporting these suppositions - for specific approximate numbers, specific calculations showing how they were arrived at - it strikes me as no more reasonable to suppose them than to suppose that a host of angels are physically sitting around my kitchen table offering firsthand testimony to the literal veracity of specific stories from the Bible book of Genesis.

I believe Buffy is correct in her assertion that Darwinian evolution is much more likely an explanation for present day observation than Biblical creationism. Shubee, do you have any evidence to support the suppositions you offer? :QuestionM

PS: IMHO, these sort of statements are some of the best brief summaries of formalism. I encountered one first in when I read GEB in 1980 - Hofstadter terms what they describe “typographical rules”, and uses the idea extensively throughout the book.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Well, of course not. Unfortunately Mr. Pitman is highly selective in his choice of "examples," and if you'd like to digress into a discussion of any of his points, I guess I'd be glad to entertain you. Suffice it to say that he does not address--mostly because he is promoting "Intelligent Design" as opposed to "Young Earth Creationism"--the issue that the Great Flood theory of geologic observations relies on a stochastic process that would require physical causes for the observed ordering that are in direct contradiction with known--and reproducible--laws of hydrodynamics. How this layering occurs in perfect correlation with a variety of dating methods is at the very least--as both Craig and Freeztar have noted--many, many orders of magnitude more improbable than Evolution, and indeed, as I later stated, would really require the temporary suspension of physical laws in order to achieve.
The "theory of devolution" is based almost exclusively on a purposeful misinterpretation of Evolution.

Evolution DOES NOT say that the result is "ever increasing complexity" or even "improvement." "Better" is a function of the *specific environment*, and is NOT some sort of abstract truth about superiority. As the article you linked does indeed show examples of "devolution" but that is fundamentally irrelevant in either finding fault with Evolution: Evolution makes no such claim, and to use this as the basis for finding such fault is a "Straw Man Argument."

As Bob Dylan once said, "the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changin'." Hard to come up with a *better* evolutionary explanation for the "conundrum" you are trying to show here.

Oddly enough however, calls to devolution are in fact a great argument against Creationism, since it requires an explanation for why an Intelligent Creator would cause devolution to occur. Why would urchins and starfish be punished with the removal of their brains? What did they do to deserve such treatment?
Well, I'd encourage you to read the paper by Dr. Harold Coffin "The Yellowstone Petrified "Forests" which is cited on that page: you'll find that it really does not support the argument that such layers around petrified trees is somehow unusual, and in fact in its addendum, it shows how the process is actually being replicated in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens post its 1980 erruption!

Trees fossilize, and if they are surrounded by sediment that initially develops and washes away, that paper explains why they do indeed do so in situ, thus causing "millions of years"--something that is clearly creative license with the facts--of sediment to grow around them.

This is just one of the many ways in which "mainstream" Creationist theory has distorted existing data that actually disproves what it claims to prove.
But none of what you've stated here makes "creationism possible." All you've pointed to is the fact that yes, complex systems--with the input of large amounts of energy (to ensure no violation of the laws of Conservation of Energy)--*can*--although not always--create more complexity "out of nothing," and then yes decay just as easily.

These processes can be demonstrated with very simple--and entirely mathematical--system, that require no call to an outside, metaphysical creator: they come into existence simply based on known and quite obvious laws of mathematics.

We can get into interesting philosophical arguments about the nature of mathematics of course, and the Platonic notion of mathematical truth as transcending "physical truth" (an excellent discussion of which you will find in Chapter 1 of Roger Penrose's Road to Reality, to utilize your own reference!): Is it possible to argue that the Creator could create mathematics arbitrarily to suit Her notions of what reality should be? If not, then given that what we see is entirely explainable through abstract mathematical truth, the notion of a Creator is not only unnecessary in the sense of Occam, it is by definition unprovable!
Well, except for that carbon-14 data....you see, in spite of calls to its "inaccuracy" you apparently missed the point: you can *ignore* its exact alignment--which can easily be explained by error ranges due to specific environmental variations for which there is no direct evidence in specific samples--but still get *relative* datings that must align. Its as simple as this: layers that are obviously undisturbed can show differences in "accuracy" that are well within statistical deviations. You do not find items that are close in undisturbed physical strata that are hundreds of thousands or millions of years apart with no obvious explanation: the trees you reference above are dated to the strata *at their roots*, not randomly assorted as one would find in a typical "catastrophe."

Simply by making calls to "obvious catastrophes" of quite small scale, you do not explain how not only there was a global catastrophe, but that it had the ability to disturb layers of geological strata that cannot be moved by any amount of water thrown at it over a space of 40 days.

My favorite theory of the Great Flood is that of a natural dam/waterfall at the Bosporous that in a very short period of time broke and inundated a then mostly dry Black Sea, for which there is some significant--although not conclusive--physical evidence. The interesting thing about this particular theory is that it well-explains the historical story, while it shows that the effects of such a hydrological inundation--while quite devastating to the local inhabitants--did almost nothing to the geological record. In fact there's little physical evidence at all!

Have you asked yourself the question: what sort of hydrological action would be *required* to cause the evidence of geological strata to exist? Those provided by sites like Answers In Genesis are unfortunately laughably incomplete and provide nothing but issue after issue with the actual data that is never addressed because, well, there's no alternative explanation that would allow such geological evidence to be created by a "really big storm."

Monkey men all, in business suit, teachers and critics all dance the poot, :phones:
Buffy

Every possible creation story and the MWI
 

Forum-wide, we don’t. The idea that various religious creation stories are metaphorical rather than literal is an interesting, if centuries old, one, worthy of many threads. However, this thread is about the idea that a particular creation story could be literally, because, according to some interpretations of quantum physics, nearly anything can be true.

We’ve not yet much discussed in this thread the concept of interpretations of theories of quantum physics, as opposed to the theories themselves, in particular the many-worlds interpretation, which explains the probabilistic nature of quantum physics with the idea that everything that can happen actually does in some “alternate universe”, or world-line. According to this interpretation, in some universe other than our own, the most literal reading of the Genesis account actually happened. In another, the clearly factious one of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism happened. In another, a creation story never imagined in our universe happened.

In yet others, some past happened, then the universe spontaneously changed so that all evidence reveals that something different happened. In some “chaos” world-lines, pasts and futures are so disjoint that, for all practical purposes, causation is not a meaningful concept

In short, in some universe, any arbitrary creation story, including every completely senseless one, happened.

The MWI is well known and very controversial. One of the major objections to it is that, in it’s pure form, it’s physically irrelevant. The many world-lines are causally unconnected, which means that, by definition, they can’t interact in any way. In a sense, separate world-lines are less than imaginary, as even imaginary worlds are real in the sense that they exist as configurations of neurons and chemicals in the brains of the people imagining them. Alternate world are not even connected to our universe in this manner - there’s no causal link between them and our universe whatever.

IMHO, a similar objection applies to any sort of “quantum theory of creation”. Any arbitrary past might possibly have occurred, but the practical value of this, scientific or religious, is nothing.

Re: Is This Axiom Set Consistent?
 

CraigD,

Your argument here is incorrect. It's true that Hilbert's original ideas on formalism were overly ambitious. But even the Wikipedia article you cite says, "Much of Hilbert's program can be salvaged by changing its goals slightly." Also, it's widely recognized by mathematicians that Hilbert's intellectual achievements on the foundations of mathematics were revolutionary. More to the point, there is simply no significant connection between David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics and Hilbert's efforts to prove the consistency of mathematics.

The Ascent of Man
 

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

I regard the mechanism "survival of the fittest" as a tautology and consider the claim that scientists never insinuate religious, long-term conclusions for the theory of evolution as clever propaganda. If evolution in biology only means change over time, then I suppose that I'm a creationist-evolutionist that accepts natural selection.

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. 

The player will show in this paragraph

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.

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

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.

I am not invoking a Creator in the background for quantum creation theory. If there are mathematical statements in arithmetic that are unprovable, why should I be troubled by the existence of God being unprovable?

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

Here's someone with enough imagination to at least believe that the third postulate is conceivable:

Re: The Ascent of Man
 

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?
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.
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.
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.
Can you cite one?
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, :phones:
Buffy

Re: The Ascent of Man
 

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.

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.

The Fundamental Physics of Quantum Creationism
 

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:

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:

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:

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

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:

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.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

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?

Re: The Fundamental Physics of Quantum Creationism
 

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

Re: The Fundamental Physics of Quantum Creationism
 

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.

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

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

Mr. Tompkins meets Maxwell's demon
 

:thumbs_up 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. :thumbs_up

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.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

I wish to address a single aspect of the discussion: the postulate that the globally complex inter-relationships of sediments and their contained fossils are the product of a single event.

While Shubee's first axiom, if I understand it correctly, is that quantum mechanics allows anything to happen, I feel constrained to agree with William of Ockham and to 'go for the simpler explanation'.

Sedimentary rocks have a considerable number of defining properties: these include grain size, shape, angularity and sorting; cementation type and extent; matrix type and extent; structural features such as bedding planes, graded bedding, cross bedding, flute and sole marks, etc.

Extensive study has shown that these vary in relation to the environment in which the sediments are deposited. In addition various diagenetic changes of mineral composition and microscopic and macroscopic structure also occur in response to the specific environment. We have observed the vast majority of these characteristics within modern depositional environments. Therefore we can - and it seems reasonable to do so - we can interpret the environment of deposition of ancient sediments on the basis of their properties.
When we do so we not only find that such matches are straighforward, but we find the lateral and vertical change of environment is consistent with what we see in modern depositional settings. The fudnamental dictum of geology - the present is the key to the past - is repeatedly validated.

The probability that this same complex interplay of environments, apparently covering billions of years of the Earth's history in a remarkably self consistent way, could actually be the result of chance happenings associated with a single event, is so vastly improbable that it merits the description impossible.

The Meaning of Maud's Dream
 

CraigD, your mangled misrepresentation of the story of Maxwell's Demon (pp. 72- 76) is terribly misleading. First off, George Gamow's highly imaginative story is just a story. And in that story, the fantastically improbable really happens. This is clear from the fact that the professor basically says how lucky the three of them are to see an event that will probably never happen again in the whole history of the universe.

The structure of the story is obvious from these excerpts:

Maud is obviously dreaming at this point. And what happens in Maud's dream is obviously a mix of learning physics based on the professor's ramblings about statistical thermodynamics and Maxwell's demon and what she learns from the demon directly.

What is the purpose of the demon in Maud's dream?

Coincidentally, just as Maud awakens from her dream, the content of the dream, i.e., the demon's strategy to violate the second law of thermodynamics, is seen to parallel reality. And that coincidence, however you want to interpret it, parallels perfectly the professor's statement: "Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one!"

Of course this is just a story. I never suggested that this story was based on an observation of the second law of thermodynamics actually begin broken! I simply referred to this story as genuinely indicating a sincere belief by physicists in statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy. The point of the story is that violations of the second law of thermodynamics can happen! That was George Gamow's meaning and I backed it up with unquestionably accurate physics that somehow magically exists in Wikipedia.

George Gamow simply recreated the original story of Maxwell's demon by giving it a quantum mechanical twist. That's the meaning of this demon using a tennis racquet. I believe it's clear that my quantum mechanical interpretation agrees perfectly with George Gamow's obvious intent.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Ockham's razor is a silly axiom historically. Einstein basically was following Ockham's razor when he repeatedly expressed his preference for the simplicity of determinism over the complexity of quantum theory. Einstein kept insisting on his view with the now infamous words: "God does not play dice." To this Bohr famously replied: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

I agree that Ockham's razor is simple but surely you don't believe that it is always true? Determinism is dead. Only an ignoramus can confidently reject quantum theory today.

That sounds like a tautology to me.

Where in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient coal deposits featured in the videos at Sean D. Pitman's website, The Fossil Record?

This thread is for the purpose of demonstrating that evolutionists and geologists can only admit and reveal the obvious, that the fantastically improbable is highly unlikely, that they have no understanding of fantastic quantum improbabilities and are incapable of refuting the possibility of quantum creationism actually being correct. Thank you.

Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?
 

Ockham's razor does not say that the simplest theory is right. It says that the theory which uses the fewest acting agents, while still taking into account all data, is most likely true. There is a difference there. It also takes into account probabilities. As in, if you have two theories which are not equally likely, the more likely theory is...more likely. If, during a thunderstorm, I hear a large crack, and I rush to my window and I see that the tree in my backyard is split open and broken in half, I assume it was struck by lightning, not that a grenade hit it. Either one could be possible, but the lightning is more likely. If I later find metal fragments scattered about my yard, then the lightning theory is called into question, and the grenade theory is stronger. Both times, I use Ockham's razor.

Is Mathematics Science?
 

There are no acting agents in quantum mechanics. In quantum theory, all the laws of physics are ultimately probabilistic. This is the consensus of all mainstream physicists. It is widely accepted that there are mathematical proofs that no deterministic theory could possibly exist that might account for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. I believe that the mathematician John von Neumann was the first to prove this result.

What does Ockham's razor say about that?

Rewriting Gamow
 

The claimappears to me incorrect. Unlike the preceding chapters of Gamow’s book, this chapter contains no references even to the term “quantum”, and shares its title with a well known classical thought experiment.

Shubee, have you any reference to a scientist or any other sort of person sharing you interpretation of this story as having a “quantum mechanical twist” :QuestionM

Though I’ve long enjoyed Gamow’s science popularizing writing (I grew up on it!), IMO he made some regrettable slips in his “Maxwell’s Demon” story.

The essential trait of Maxwell’s demon, as described by Maxwell and in serious treatments of the idea, is that it does arbitrarily little work. The usual description is of a gas-filled cylinder separated by a piston, with a door in the piston that can be quickly open and closed by the demon with arbitrarily little force. The demon opens the door when a faster-moving molecule approaches it from the left moving to the right, or when a slower-moving molecule approaches from the right moving to the left. By sorting faster-moving molecules on the right, and slower-moving ones on the left, while doing an arbitrarily small amount of mechanical work, the demon causes the pressure on the right wall of the piston to be greater than on the left wall, allowing it to move, doing mechanical work in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Gamow’s elegantly dressed demon doesn’t do arbitrarily little work. Rather than sorting the gas molecules via a door, it swats them around forcefully with “an instrument like a tennis racket”. This misses the essential character of the thought experiment. If the demon were capable of this sort of molecule-accelerating, he could more easily accomplish his water-boiling trick simply by increasing the speed of every molecule he encountered, adding energy to the system in the manner of an ordinary heating element.

Had I been Gamow’s editor, I would have had him dodge this failing with a bit of elaboration on the demon and his molecule-manipulating instrument. With apologies the late author, my rewrite of the last 500 words of the story:

So saying, Maxwell's Demon left Maud perched on the edge of the ice crystal, like an unhappy mountain climber, and set about his work.

Clinging to an instrument looking like an oversize canoe paddle - though, Maud reminder herself, in reality far smaller than the tiniest bits of barley ash in her husband’s wiskey - with the slightest shift of balance, the Demon dipped its blade into the path of a particular molecule in the turbid roil beneath which sucked it and him end-over-end and down in a seemingly random direction, to carom off another molecule, then another and another, until demon and racquet seemed utterly at the mercy of the chaotic swirl of molecules. Gradually, however, Maud discerned method behind his wild ride. Through subtle tucks of his body, he steered the racquet into the path of the fastest molecules, deflecting them back into the layer beneath her feet, while allowing or even nudging the slower moving molecules to drift quietly deeper, always managing to have the rebound propel him on a course to deliver his next stroke. Despite the fury of the molecules - which, after a few minutes, were clearly more agitated in the layer just beneath the surface than deeper down, and increasingly beginning to snap free of their jostling companions to escape into the less packed expanses above - Maud though “why, he’s hardly putting any effort into it at all. A good thing, too: those pants are really not suitable exercise cloths!”

Molecules were now escaping in groups of thousands together, tearing through the surface as giant bubbles. Then a cloud of steam covered Maud's whole field of vision and she could get only occasional glimpses of the tumbling paddle or the tail of the Demon's dress suit among the masses of maddened molecules. Finally the molecules in her ice crystal perch gave way and she fell into the heavy clouds of vapour beneath. . ..

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. Out of the corner of her vision, she caught a glimpse of motion in the dining room, and was unsurprised to find herself again in the presence of the elegantly dressed Demon.

“My father does go on so” she said with a touch of exasperation. “all that about luck and billions of years and phenomena. Wouldn’t it just put him in his place if you’d repeat your joke, not a minute after he’s said all that?”

“Alas, madam, that’s not possible,” said the Demon with a regretful shake of his head.

“Why not?” asked Maud, “surely you’re not tired, what with hardly moving a muscle in all that stirring?”

“You’re right - physical effort doesn’t enter into the equation for beings like me. The laws of probability and thermodynamics, though, are not to be denied, no matter what old James Clerk hinted.

“Information is my limitation,” said Maxwell’s Demon. “All of that sorting takes a bit of mental gymnastics, what someday everyone will call computing resources. That little bit of disorder I straightened out in your husband’s drink is all up here now,” he said, tapping his right horn nub, “every little detail of each momentum vector, and needs to be cleaned out before I can play another joke like that last one.

“Surely forgetting all that … data … is less work that memorizing it,” said Maud.

“Not so,” corrected the Demon (who was beginning to sound to Maud as bad as her father). “gaining information is permitted without the introduction of energy into the system. Forgetting - or better put, resetting - is what takes work, of the mundane, mechanical kind. I’m due for a memory wipe as soon as I get home to … wherever it is demons go in their down time. You’ve plenty of mundane energy at hand in the kitchen, but demon etiquette prohibits that sort of borrowing, and even of it didn’t, They don’t let us carry around the paraphernalia for that sort of thing.”

Maud thought she could understand the wisdom behind rules along these lines.

A Prediction
 

I expect that the most likely scholarly reference that might support my thesis would be from Sir Roger Penrose. Have you read the Penrose commentary on Mr. Tompkins?

Continuing request to support a claim
 

I’ve not read Penrose’s forward. My copy of the book is an earlier edition, which lacks this new forward, and the Amazon link you post doesn’t include the forward in its book preview.

Can you quote the portion of the forward that supports your claim?

Re: A Prediction
 

CraigD,

I don't have the new book. I simply expect from the advertisement that Penrose would have an added commentary on all of the Mr. Tompkins adventures, including Maxwell's demon.

Exquisite Horizontal Maps of Geological Layers
 

I can't even imagine that to be correct. I think it's obvious that the fossil record is a record of catastrophes and that if we could map the extent of the geological layers, we would see that those catastrophes are on a fantastic scale.

I see the evidence in support of a global flood as truly marvelous, exquisite and compelling. Let's talk about the many enormous burial sites that consist of unimaginably large quantities of plant biomass residue and the graveyards of fantastically many, densely packed fossilized remains of assorted animals.

Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost 100 times more massive than living plant biomass (Poldervaart 1955; Ricklefs 1993). That's a highly relevant calculation. It's easy to conceptualize a pre-flood Eden-like world with 100 times the living plant biomass that exists today. The truly insurmountable problem is in trying to imagine a gradual, non-catastrophic process today that is on its way toward producing vast quantities of oil, gas and coal in highly concentrated pockets of the earth's crust.

The distribution of fantastic amounts of plant biomass residue in widely separated pockets on a continually changing planet is very strange. The existence of immense animal graveyards seems to be a remarkably similar phenomenon and equally mysterious. Can you explain the enormous graveyards of fossilized animals where the bones are found tightly packed and jumbled together?

For one such burial site, consider the Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic) in the western United States.

There seems to be many unimaginably large animal graveyards that demonstrate that the rapid burial of large animal populations is widespread. How do theorists explain it? Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated there are eight hundred billion skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karroo formation. --Adequacy of the Fossil Record, Norman D. Newall, Journal of Paleontology, vol. 33 (May 1959, p. 492).

Where in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient oil and coal deposits that now exist? Also, please tell me where animal graveyards of immense size are currently forming. If fantastic numbers of animals were ever mysteriously drawn to specific locations that became immense graveyards of fossilized skeletons and densely packed bones, please explain the mechanism.

Re: Exquisite Horizontal Maps of Geological Layers
 

First you are assuming that the fossils were all laid down at the same time in many different places and then assuming the event/cause was the flood described in religious texts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some areas were at certain times more conductive to fossil formation than other places. Huge beds of fossils all the same age could well be the result of the some catastrophe but then again it could be that conditions for fossil formation were present in that one place for many thousands of years due to the conditions of low oxygen and deep sediments. All this aside, have you given any though to where the water for this flood came from or went to afterward? Why wasn't all sea life killed out right by all the freshwater? Of if it was somehow salt water why wasn't all fresh water life killed off at this time? Where did the water come from and where did it go? These two questions are more than enough to prove no world wide flood ever occurred.

Second you are assuming that all hydrocarbon deposits were formed in a short period of time, again nothing could be further from the truth. oil deposits are slowly refilling, even now, but at a rate too slow to do us any good. There is reason to think that hydrocarbon deposits have nothing to do with fossils of complex organisms at all. some would even say the hydrocarbon deposits are only geology reworked by biology not biology reworked by geology. but even if hydrocarbon deposits are indeed geology reworking biology it happens so slowly we would never expect to see significant hydrocarbon deposits form in historic times. Creationism raises far more questions that it can even begin to answer, it is not and cannot be science, ever!

The Third Axiom of Quantum Creationism
 

That's almost correct. I am assuming a worldwide flood (my third axiom) but I am not presupposing any of the specific details in Scripture. Where is it written that I can't borrow all the world's global flood legends and those Biblical passages that indicate a theory of devolution and make scientific postulates out of them?

I don't believe that you have grasped the first axiom of quantum creationism. Where is your refutation of the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory?

I have answered that question in post #28:

One possibility is a fantastic quantum improbability. If fast and slow moving molecules can be separated and prevented from mixing, then the same trick can be applied to freshwater and saltwater. I went into incredible detail how this could be done on a molecular level in post #35.

I have refuted your refutation decidedly by invoking my first axiom. Your proof is clearly invalid.

Yes, I believe that's a reasonable conclusion from what I've written.

Where? When will the processes be completed? I think you're making ridiculous assertions without proof.

That makes no sense to me. If Darwinism is correct, then we should expect that vast quantities of plant biomass is already on its way toward producing large deposits of oil and coal in every stage of development. Where is it?

David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind. When Darwinism is compared to any true science, it is found that Darwinism is just an anecdote. See The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski.