Are You A Quantum Creationist?

That is a better analogy than mine. City dwellers would not refer to themselves 'piss drinking shit eaters' (well I wouldn't if I lived in the city), it sounds rather disturbing when using those terms. That is why I would not refer to myself as a big bang creationist, it sounds disturbing. I would say instead that I feel that the big bang theory is the best theory describing the beginning of the universe as we know it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should keep your preoccupation with reality in your own threads and not try to hijack other threads, even if this is a goofy trolling thread...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I've already explained, I could have defined a quantum creationist as a believer in "quantum creation," which is a phrase used by Prof. Alexander Vilenkin and Prof. Stephen Hawking. So please explain why the linguistic link between "quantum creation" and a "quantum creationist" is a difficult or insurmountable transition for you to grasp.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, because you are trying to redefine - or more correctly perhaps to obscure - the accepted meaning of the term "creationist".

The first line of the Wiki definition of "creationism" is as follows: "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation."

Now tell us where, in the video you posted, the speaker said he believed in specific acts of divine creation?

 

Read my next post….

 

Thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is no rational argument against defining "a quantum creationist" to mean "a believer in quantum creation" since "quantum creation" and "quantum creationist" are obviously grammatically linked. The beauty of liberated mathematicians is that we have no inhibitions about creating our own definitions, if it leads to logical structures and valid arguments. But a rational argument is not a good enough reason to stop all the poo-flinging chimpanzees.

 

Creation and Creationism isn't the same thing. So we probably will only grasp that you're conflating them
to mean the same thing. You're doing this so you can denigrate inflation cosmology by asking 'what's the difference between ....... and what you believe God did'. In the process you get to troll all these atheistic scientists.

 

Quantum creation already has a specific meaning. If quantum creationism has never been defined heretofore, then I have every right to define it as I have done.

 

scientific knowledge is just too advance to be translated into your own primitive conceptual framework. it's analogous to if i were to try to translate quantum mechanics into the grunts and screeches of a chimpanzee.

 

So says the angriest flinger of poo.

 

Good point. By the way would you describe yourself as a follower of Gods Bastard Child?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

shrugs, i'm just moving what you already thrown out of the way. in a sense you can say , i have begun " cleaning " the mess you're continuing to make.
now what ?

 

I describe myself as a believer of axioms like The Fundamental Beliefs of Millerite Adventists, Circa 2015.

 

Has anyone else noticed a positive correlation between the stupidity of a thread and the number of posts?

 

In other words you're rather gullible since those "axioms" are nothing like axiomatic.

 

Mathematicians don't always limit themselves to the simplest axioms imaginable.

 

lets be honest here at this moment, you are completely clueless to anything of what a mathematician does or is or mathematics in general , correct ?

 

No, certainly not consciously.

I don't know what "quantum creationism" refers to. The first post didn't clarify things very much.

 

Do you have the integrity to admit that you are a follower of "Gods Bastard Child?" After all, you have demanded other people admit what they believe using your preferred language.

Or do you refuse to do what you demand others do? There's a word for that . . .