Is this it for creationism?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Is this it for creationism?

Post #1

Post by Jose Fly »

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?
Last edited by Jose Fly on Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #91

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #90]
This is one of the major arguments that Bohr and Einstein had because Einstein's theory said that there is nothing that can go faster than the speed of light. But Bohr found that an electron cannot exist between two energy values so that means that the electron would have to travel instantaneously between energy levels and orbitals.
Bohr's main point was that the energy levels are quantized and not continuous as in a classical system, and that the electrons can only occupy one of these quantized levels and not anything in between. This is because (like the etalon examples from earlier with light) the wave motion of the electrons see similar constructive and destructive interference and only constructive interference is stable. Shrodinger got this right with his wave approach. Bohr's point though, was not in the "instantaneous" part, but on the fact that the electrons could only occupy specific, quantized energy levels and not hang out in between them. He made no predictions on how fast the transitions between energy levels were (others did later).

Bohr did his atomic hydrogen calculations in 1913 and back then they had no ability, experimentally, to distinguish "instantaneous" from "very fast". We can do that these days with femtosecond lasers and the ability to see processes occurring at the attosecond (e-18) time scales. Here are some examples:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20190605/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133304.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0120307477

It isn't 1913 anymore.
Inflation theory is nothing more than an ad hoc theory that tries to explain how the temperature of the universe could be so smooth.
That's why it is not a theory, but a hypothesis. I think everyone knows that it has not been supported enough to properly call it a theory.
Quantum mechanics has no problem with particles moving instantaneously.
Examples? Atomic optical transitions are not in this category.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #92

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #91]
Bohr did his atomic hydrogen calculations in 1913 and back then they had no ability, experimentally, to distinguish "instantaneous" from "very fast". We can do that these days with femtosecond lasers and the ability to see processes occurring at the attosecond (e-18) time scales. Here are some examples:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20190605/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133304.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0120307477
Interesting theory. But all of your articles said that the jumps were thought to be instantaneous. So Quantum mechanics has no problem with instantaneous movement (which was my point) or even particles breaking the speed of light barrier. The speed of entangled particles was measured in this experiment and it was calculated to be 10,000 times the speed of light.

https://newatlas.com/quantum-entangleme ... ght/26587/

My point was that quantum theory does not have speed light for particles.

It isn't 1913 anymore.

Particles were thought to move instantaneously until this experiment was performed in 2019, three years ago. We will see whether this holds up.
Quantum mechanics has no problem with particles moving instantaneously.
Examples? Atomic optical transitions are not in this category.
How fast is that? Faster than the speed of light. Entangled particles were shown to move faster than the speed of light. Agian there is nothing in quantum mechanics that says that particles have to move at the speed of light.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #93

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #92]
But all of your articles said that the jumps were thought to be instantaneous.
In 1913 an attosecond and instantaneous could not be distinguished. Then technology advanced to the point such transitions could be measured in time and theoretically described and we now know they aren't "instantaneous" (ie. requiring exactly zero time). But again, Bohr's point was not about the time for transitions, but rather that energy levels are quantized and electrons can only occupy these discrete energy levels.
The speed of entangled particles was measured in this experiment and it was calculated to be 10,000 times the speed of light.

Entangled particles were shown to move faster than the speed of light.
Nothing is "moving" in entanglement. There is no real information being transferred between the entangled pairs:

https://quantumxc.com/blog/is-quantum-c ... -of-light/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/ ... c070be3a1e
Agian there is nothing in quantum mechanics that says that particles have to move at the speed of light.
Only massless things can move at the (vacuum) speed of light (eg. photons, gravity waves). Anything with a rest mass has to be slower (Relativity). Quantum mechanics doesn't make any such stipulation, but it also doesn't stipulate what goes into an apple pie. To date, there is no confirmation that anything with a rest mass can travel at or greater than the speed of light, nor any evidence that massless things can travel faster than the speed of light. In particle accelerators protons can be accelerated to just under the speed of light, and the energy required to do this matches Relativity predictions accurately. Cosmic rays are the fastest. Here are some numbers (from Here):

980 GeV: fastest Fermilab proton, 0.99999954c, 299,792,320 m/s.

6.5 TeV: fastest LHC proton, 0.9999999896c, 299,792,455 m/s.

104.5 GeV: fastest LEP electron (fastest accelerator particle ever), 0.999999999988c, 299,792,457.9964 m/s.

5 x 10^19 eV: highest energy cosmic rays ever (assumed to be protons), 0.99999999999999999999973c, 299,792,457.999999999999918 m/s.

We can't compete with mother nature, but so far no values > c. That warp drive from Star Trek is nowhere in sight.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #94

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:56 pm Nothing is "moving" in entanglement. There is no real information being transferred between the entangled pairs:
Well consider the fact that there is a causal relationship between them, their is mutual influence...

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #95

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #94]
Well consider the fact that there is a causal relationship between them, their is mutual influence...
That's not what is being contested.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #96

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #93]
In 1913 an attosecond and instantaneous could not be distinguished. Then technology advanced to the point such transitions could be measured in time and theoretically described and we now know they aren't "instantaneous" (ie. requiring exactly zero time). But again, Bohr's point was not about the time for transitions, but rather that energy levels are quantized and electrons can only occupy these discrete energy levels.
Exactly, and electrons cannot exist between these energy states. That is why he and everyone believed that these jumps were instantaneous. I will accept the 2019 experiment for now but an attosecond is a very short amount of time and I would think that relativity effects would have to influence measuring this time differential.
Nothing is "moving" in entanglement. There is no real information being transferred between the entangled pairs:
What are you saying is happening then with entangled particles and why did Einstein call this "spooky action at a distance"?
Only massless things can move at the (vacuum) speed of light (eg. photons, gravity waves). Anything with a rest mass has to be slower (Relativity). Quantum mechanics doesn't make any such stipulation,
Quantum mechanics for the longest time indicated that electrons cannot exist in energy states between jumps. Quantum trajectory theory is saying that is not the case and that the jumps do not have to be random as I am understanding it. Which is a departure from standard quantum theory. Lots of practical applications in quantum computing even in chemistry if the theory holds up. I did not read enough on this yet to delineate how this theory affects the uncertainty principle.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #97

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #96]
Exactly, and electrons cannot exist between these energy states. That is why he and everyone believed that these jumps were instantaneous. I will accept the 2019 experiment for now but an attosecond is a very short amount of time and I would think that relativity effects would have to influence measuring this time differential.
Bohr didn't calculate the expected time of transition, he just knew they were very fast. His entire point was that stable electron orbits require quantized energy levels, and electrons could only occupy these discrete levels (hence the individual lines in a spectrum rather than a continuous spread as they used to think should be the case). As mentioned in post 82, the distances involved in these electron transitions is so small that the speed of light isn't threatened.
What are you saying is happening then with entangled particles and why did Einstein call this "spooky action at a distance"?
I think he used that phrase because of the absence of any physical or optical or other known "link" between the particles. The entangled pair have properties that are related when they are formed, but as far as I know there is no experiment that has shown any sort of communication mechanism between them in order to maintain the entangled state. People are still trying to figure this stuff out.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #98

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #97]
Bohr didn't calculate the expected time of transition, he just knew they were very fast. His entire point was that stable electron orbits require quantized energy levels, and electrons could only occupy these discrete levels (hence the individual lines in a spectrum rather than a continuous spread as they used to think should be the case). As mentioned in post 82, the distances involved in these electron transitions is so small that the speed of light isn't threatened.
Three men just were awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics for proving that there were no hidden variables in entanglement and that the information moved instantaneously. In fact entangled particles causing teleportation is the crux of the current research in quantum communication.


User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #99

Post by EarthScienceguy »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:48 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:13 pm1. How smoothness of the distribution of even the most distant galaxies.
2. How the distant galaxies become appear smaller when the BB theory predicts they should look larger.
Do you have any source that explains why either of these is inconsistent with standard cosmologies?
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:13 pmThat supports creationism.
How? Do you have something more than "these are weird?"
I posted this video on post 98 that explains what I am talking about. 2022 Nobel Prize winners.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #100

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #98]
Three men just were awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics for proving that there were no hidden variables in entanglement and that the information moved instantaneously. In fact entangled particles causing teleportation is the crux of the current research in quantum communication.
They showed that there were no hidden variables, but did not show that "information" moved instantaneously. Entangled pairs are described by one wavefunction rather than a separate wavefunction for each particle. A measurement of one particle in the entangled pair collapses the wavefunction which forces the other particle of the pair out of its superposition into the known state from the original entanglement. This can't be used to transport information faster than the speed of light.

Entanglement alone is not enough to send data (eg. see This from Aliro who make quantum systems). They comment that "quantum teleportation uses entanglement to transfer quantum states across long distances. However, teleportation requires sending a classical bit in addition to the entangled qubits. So, while the entanglement operates instantaneously, the information transfer is limited by the speed of the classical information, which travels at the speed of light."

This and This also describe the problem with moving actual information at faster than the speed of light. The second link ends with this comment: "While it's one of the weirdest and coolest phenomena in physics, there is no way to use quantum entanglement to send messages faster than the speed of light." The Nobel prize winners did not show that information travels instantaneously, but that the hidden variables proposition from EPR was not valid.

But how does any of this help the creationists hoping for infinite light speeds to suggest that distant stars are not billions of light years away so the universe must be (or could be) only thousands of years old? Entanglement doesn't support infinite light speeds (ie. photons moving faster than c)
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply