Are You A Quantum Creationist?

it is true now, that you have restored to the element of pathetic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

because they are not saying what you fictitiously attempt to imply they are saying.
it's literally that simple.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

are you working in a lab or a project site ?
are you an actual qualified scientist ?
or is all this coming only from links you have clicked on ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually this is obviously, massively incorrect. quantum is a specific unit, which appears you may not be capable to grasp..

 

It's obvious that Shubert has made up the term quantum creationism, made up the definition of his made up term, and applied it willy nilly where ever he wishes. He ascribes statements to people that were not made by them, purely to advance his religious arguments. There can be no rational discussion under such conditions , and indeed there none occurring here.

 

How childish and pointless. I could equally ask you "Are you gay?" And what would your answer be, I wonder?

 

it's true because i defined it to be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

At least it's nice to see this nonsensical rabid God bothering creationist and his diatribe finally shifted to somewhere more appropriate.

 

Certainly not what you are imagining it to be. Nice try though. Your magical pixie in the sky should be pleased with your efforts, even though they have now been deservedly shifted to the fringes.
One more floor to go though: Cesspool!

 

Followed by:

Coming up next - Eugene claims that he never used the term "quantum creation."

 

Whoa! We're already six pages deep. This definitely calls for a poll

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Eugene, I took the liberty of forwarding your OP along with a link to the thread to a few prominent Physicists. Here's what they said:

 

I find it interesting that all the physicists you contacted had nothing to say about Alexander Vilenkin's extraordinary three minute video and that Lee Smolin cared so little about your misrepresentation that he didn't even bother replying with a grammatically correct sentence.

 

So Professor David Z. Albert professes to be a quantum creationist but not a believer in quantum creationism?

 

Misrepresentaion?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pot, Kettle, Black comes to mind.
What a fraud!

 

What fraud? Didn't Professor Alexander Vilenkin also profess to be a quantum creationist?

 

Yes what a fraud! In fact what a liar!
What Prof Vilenkin said in context.....
I guess, by this very broad definition, you could call me a quantum
creationist. But note that quantum creation of the universe that I am
talking about is described by the laws of physics. And when I write about
it, I write "nothing" in quotation marks. The reason is that the laws of
physics are assumed to exist "prior" to the universe. And this is far
from being "nothing" in the literal sense.

He certainly is not meaning what you are inferring, so yeah, what a fraud and what a liar to boot.
Your evangelistic mission here has failed, as most evangelistic missions based on lies and misrepresentations fail. sorry.

 

I can see God not granting Neil deGrasse Tyson his request and instead deciding that Mr. Tyson must be consumed by fire. Likewise, I can see Richard Feynman dying twice. “I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring.” -- Richard P. Feynman.

 

That's what I called him. And he acknowledges the definition.

 

I didn't say anything on this thread about what came before the creation event. So how could this possibly contradict what I've written?