Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Jan 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    There are no naturally-occurring Martian rovers.
    No, it doesn't. Maximum web integrity would involve a very dense, solid web. Spiders don't build those. They build tenuous, easily-damaged structures.
    Yes. You're only wrong about what is "efficient" for a spider's web.
    Where did those different patterns exist before humans used them?
    No. Evolution doesn't do that. Lots of things are very inefficient in evolution.

    Are you willing to learn anything new about evolution, or are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Or will you just ignore this and keep right on believing what you believe?
    Word salad.
    "More and less" is not a differential equation. Come on, Write4U. You've looked up "differential equation" on wikipedia before. You have even cut-and-pasted definitions across to this forum. Didn't you read those definitions in the process of doing that? Did you not understand them?

    What about the conversations we had with you previously, after you misused the term "differential equation"? Did you learn anything from those conversations? Or have you forgotten them? Or did you simply ignore them, to go on believing what you believe, regardless?
    If "aerodynamics" is the formal study of flight, then birds and insects don't use it.
    Yes. That suggests that they have some sort of intuitive mathematical sense or heuristic "built in" by evolution, which is similar to something you said earlier about bees. However, they aren't getting out pencil and paper and solving equations. They aren't "doing maths". Also, experience counts for lot here. Lots of animals learn from experience.
    It is not.

    Do you recall previous discussions on what a mathematical function is? Or did you ignore those, to go on believing what you believe?

    It's one thing to make a mistake once and then learn how to do better next time. It's another to keep making the same mistake over and over, never accepting correction. It's pathological or, at best, hopelessly stubborn.
    If only you were able to convince anybody else of your views. But that would require having a reason, for starters.
    That's all there was in terms of actual Write4U contributions to posts #526 through #537. Signal to noise ratio remarkably low, albeit consistent with your usual output here.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Thank you James, for your concern. No need to worry. I am doing just fine.

    It is you who insisted I use "my own words" and I do. If that is confusing to you I am sorry.
    I do appreciate your interest and in time you will find that I have been making some valid observations and you will say, "wait, isn't that what W4U was talking about?" and little by little you will see the simple truths in my posits.
    Do you realize the volume of posts I am responding to? I do have a life apart from SF. Be patient! In time all your wishes will be fulfilled ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, this is based on the premise that there is no irreducible complexity.
    What is the singularity?
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2023
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes and I will refer you to the article I quoted.
    You are demanding that I claim authority, but I won't. That's why I cite authoritative articles. If you don't read them you will have no clue what I am talking about. Those quotes are the proofs supporting my posits.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, that's your problem. You make no claims other than that I don't know what I am talking about (drivel).

    Fact is that you contribute very little to the conversation at all, other than rejecting all propositions that require some time in reading the supporting materials to gain clarity in my condensed posits. I see no reason to post my own version of that which has been extensively posited by knowledgeable people. The reading time remains the same regardless of who is the author. Perhaps you missed that equivalence.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Talking about time, tell me where do you find time?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Does the future already exist? If not where is future time located?

    And for once I insist you answer that simple question.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is a misleading statement and it is wrong.
    The science of aerodynamics is a formal study of that subject. But aerodynamics exist without human symbolisms. It's part of the mathematical universe.

    What Is Aerodynamics?

    And I'm sure birds are familiar with the effects of aerodynamics, without human assistance. I believe most birds have aerodynamic physical properties.

    Biomechanics in the Wild because biomechanics is everywhere!

    Staying airborne: How bird wings are built for aerodynamic and efficient flight
    Read more....
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2023
  10. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    How did Google get through the sign up to the Sciforums process?
    Write4U Google4U
    DaveC426913 and exchemist like this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And from what library did you get your information? You did not have to do research? You knew it all before it was even published.

    Google is a reliable search engine for a range of subjects , including references to scientific literature.

    I refer to and cite science in support of my understanding on a scientific subject, no more no less.
    Is a lecture by a respectable scientist on YouTube any less respectable than the live lecture being filmed?

    What is it with this exclusivity, if you don't know it you're stupid, if you research it you're a pain.

    If you have nothing to contribute, why not sit back and watch the conversation. You might learn something.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Back to Quantum Creationism,

    Astronomers discover complex organic matter exists throughout the universe
    Date: October 27, 2011
    more ...
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    This has nothing to do with quantum creationism.

    Note: if it's not about the quantum realm, it's not about quantum creationism.

    Please stick to the topic.

    It's all well and good supporting your claims with articles and papers, but you need to actually explain the relevance of them, and show how they support what you're saying. You don't do that. You just post article after article and leave it to us to guess a relevance, which is usually absent from the outset.

    Tldr: you're really not helping yourself.
  14. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    My bold below.
    A librarian was asked what is Quantum Creationism? She replied,"middle shelf under Q."

    That’s all you're doing, pointing to things with quantum in the title and doing little or nothing to explain your supposed point. It seems when you do try, you only show how much you misunderstand things. Any person trying to explain where you are misunderstanding, will be met, from you, with another Q item from Google, again with no explanation of connection to your supposed point.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2023
    James R and exchemist like this.
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You're absolutely right, but either he's incapable of understanding your point or, possibly more likely, given the length of time this has gone on, he doesn't care because he just wants the exchange to continue, regardless of its content.

    We're not really dealing with a person able to carry on a discussion, any more.
    foghorn likes this.
  16. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Without knowing why, some find a Pseudoscience sub-forum a great comfort blanket.
    Wallowing in the comfort that their talking real science because their on a science site.
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Well, so much for a rational response. I suppose this embarrassing dumpster fire of a thread can now be closed.
    exchemist likes this.
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    And we can place our bets on what thread Write4U will light upon to hijack next............

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Then why don't you explain it to me.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Then why don't you explain it to me.

    p.s. If you are going to lecture me, you can start by using proper diction.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2023
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    To all the critics, if I don't know what I am talking about and you do know what we are talking about, why don't you explain it to us all. Wouldn't that be wonderful. We might all learn something.

    But, ...alas.... I am the only one actually trying to find a common denominator in all the creative processes that go on in the universe, hoping that some particular universal process might shed light on that "very interesting" question.

    I am not getting much help, am I?
    How can I hijack a thread that has no other posts but mine? The religious perspective was dealt with in post #1

    What aspect do you want to investigate? I am open to suggestion.
    But I am still waiting for some else to test deep waters. Closed minds.
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Your first post on this thread was no. 166, made some 6 months after the thread was opened.

    It was an attempt to hijack the thread onto your OrchOR obsession, which has nothing to do with creationism of any kind.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    There are lots of falling bodies.
    Keyword "landing".
    You're not very good at relativity, are you?
    How spider webs achieve their strength
    David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
    Publication Date: February 2, 2012

    Are we clear now?
    What are common patterns in the universe?
    But evolution does not stop at inefficiency. That'll get you killed. And then you won't have any babies who will improve the gene-pool
    Are you going to tell me I am wrong?
    Or elegant scientific poetry. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
    Oh, James, yes I understood the process, it's part of mathematics, remember? The question is if you understand the probabilistic relationship between self-organization and spaces, raw materials, and time.
    Naahh... it's all about "differential equations" and the function applies lies between.
    Wrong, it is the "science of aerodynamics" that is a formal study. "Aerodynamics" are the abstract mathematical rules by which evolution creates different size and shape wings on birds.
    Yes they are doing maths. We call it "applied mathematics".
    Anything that relates and influences something else in a regular way is a pattern. Patterns are mathematical objects.
    No, I decided that my perspective is more expansive than yours.
    Unless I'm the one who is right, from my perspective. All you do is comment on the different perspectives from which I look at natural phenomena.
    How about a common goal of "gaining knowledge" in a self-referential universe.
    But it was peaceful until the sirens started blaring.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2023
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page