[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge - Observation of the Wave Function]
The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. John 2:9 states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.
88 comments
It was water and then it was wine. It does not say it was both water and wine until it was tasted so even your limited understanding of quantum physics doesn't hold. Plus, wine and water do not look the same so it was observed before it was even tasted so it... oh screw it. It's just not worth it with this guy.
Possibly, the whole story is a pile of rubbish. Or, if I am to be charitable, it was mistranslated once upon a time (like many other things in the bible) and the stupidist of the stupid still take it literally.
At my next door pub the waiter does exactly the same thing, only with beer. She just presses the button and voilá: fresh tasty beer comes out of the keg in the back room.
No wait... i think it has been beer even before it has been placed in the keg.
Seriously, Assfly must be having a manic episode just about now, that much of whaaaaargarbl has been updated to conservapedia along with scheisse like this.
Also: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one to see (observe) it. Will it still be fallen?
Edit: i still find it scary, that there even IS such a thing as conservapedia. Some people take internet too seriously, you know.
You don't understand quantum mechanics.
You don't understand basic physics.
You don't understand basic chemistry.
You don't understand basic biology.
You don't understand basic mathematics.
You don't even understand basic human behavior.
You don't understand anything at all.
Schrödinger would puke.
FAIL
"I'm fairly certain that Schroedinger's Cat was created to demonstrate exactly why superposition cannot be applied in this manner"
Actually, that's a bit ass backwards. Schroedinger's Cat was mainly a critique towards the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (which limits quantum phenomena such as superposition rather arbitrarily to the sub-atom scale). Schroedinger's Cat isn't a "problem" for other interpretations, such as MWI (Many Worlds).
You might as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
That's a known answer.
Did you know that the majority of the world's scientists are atheists yet avidly read the Bible every day of their working lives? Did you know that the Bible is the greatest science text book ever written? Which, of course, is why scientists read it. Did you know that all the scientific wonders of the world were created by atheist scientists studying the Bible? For some reason, biblical scholars and theologians are unable to point the scientist to the correct passage until after the fact is well-known.
Although not a scientist myself, I am still able to give hints to other scientists of where to find new facts. For instance, if you wish to learn more about a FTL drive for galactic exploration, then read Leviticus. For information on flying cars read Numbers. For fusion power read Habakkuk. I have more pointers to future science but those hints should suffice for the scientifically minded. Study the Bible and become an atheist scientist.
Or it could be that when Jesus turned water into wine, the host and everyone else didn't realize it until they tasted it.
Besides, doesn't trying to explain how Jesus turned water into wine scientifically sort of diminish the miracle of the water into wine conversion, Andy?
Oh, but don't let my gender deter you from interpretation.
When my mom told me these Jesus stories when I was a little kid, I figured J spiked the punch and the story tellers made something else out of it. 60 years later, it still makes as much sense to me, except now I doubt the existence of any Jesi at all.
But exaggerating story tellers, now, those we have plenty of.
"It had been made into wine." As in, it was wine before they tasted it. On top of everything else, Schlafly doesn't even understand verb tenses! I don't think he should be in this country if he can't speak English...
>>GodotIsWaiting4U
No, wine and water are not in a goddamn wave function you retard. <<
Well, technically they are. But the probability of a single glass of water spontaneously transforming itself into wine is about as small as the probability that I can run full speed into a cement wall and quantum tunnel to the other side.
So Yeah, Schlafly Fails Physics Forever.
The KJV says "tasted the water that was made wine". The other translations are minor variations: "had been turned into wine", "now become wine", etc. What Schafly, et. al. did was to claim the passage was prefiguring quantum physics, then re-translate the Greek so as to make it sound that way. Then they turned around and used their own translation to "prove" that the Bible prefigured quantum physics. But the passage continues "he did not know where the wine had come from (though the servants knew)", showing that the water was already wine before it was tasted. What a crock of self-confirming baloney.
As an astrophysicist, the sheer amount of ignorance and idiocy here makes me RAGE.
OOOOOOOOOOHHHH, Schlafly, that BASTARD.
White wine anyone?
"This is water, now taste it, surprise it's WINE!"
Jesus always had the best practical jokes for weddings.
Nice try. Fail.
Got to love these guys. They take the Bible literally unless it goes against something they believe is evil. Then they manufacture BS. They all know what the Bible really means. Apparently they haven't been to La Cecca in Lucca, Italy and had the local white.
When Jesus turned the water into wine he said ya'll watch this . If I'm not mistaken he turned the water into wine because they ran out of wine? So they were drinking wine before he did his trick.
Never mind quantum physics fail, this one is basic English Comprehension fail. Past Perfect tense. "Had Been", indicating at some unknown or unimportant point prior to the past simple element of the statement.
The exact opposite of the AssFly's attempt at reading came up with.
"Never mind quantum physics fail, this one is basic English Comprehension fail. Past Perfect tense. "Had Been", indicating at some unknown or unimportant point prior to the past simple element of the statement."
Interesting, since 'John 2:9' links to the Conservative Bible!
Andy doesn't even understand the version of the Bible he rewrote!!!!!!!!!!!
He actually adds this note in the passage:
"This is Biblical scientific foreknowledge of quantum mechanics: the drink was not wine until it had been "observed" (tasted), as reflected by Conservapedia's translation. The KJV rendition misses this subtlety."
Please don't tell me this moron is trying to imply that the story of turning water into wine is equivalent to the collapse of the wave function in Quantum Mechanics.
This has to be nominated for the dumbest eisegesis ever put forward.
"This is Biblical scientific foreknowledge of quantum mechanics: the drink was not wine until it had been "observed" (tasted), as reflected by Conservapedia's translation. The KJV rendition misses this subtlety."
Perhaps it might have something to do with the fact that the King James Bible was written a full two centuries before even the most primitive, rudimentary version of atomic theory was developed and adopted by science, and three centuries before the theoretical underpinnings of quantum mechanical theory were described, and the authors weren't even remotely aware that these things existed in nature. Surely it couldn't be, though.
The KJV bible no more presages or describes quantum physics than its Latin and Greek roots did. It no more predicts subatomic theory than it does anesthesia, nuclear fission/fusion, antigravity, string theory or time travel. And if your brand-spanking-new Correctly Translated For Real And For True Liberalism-Free ConservaBible(TM) claims that it does, it's only because you fucking put it there by warping and torturing the original text until you could pretend it did, Andy.
Sounds like jeebus spiked the water more than turned it into wine. Did he piss in it? He also killed a herd of pigs, stole a donkey (ass), raised a ruckus at the market....maybe that is why that finaly got fed up with him and offed him.
Mmmmhmmm.
I bet it was buddy.
You're fucking insane.
@#1227145: Wrong. The correct answer is "Eight if they're skinny, and four if they're fat."
Also, we would have accepted "42." Because that's the answer to EVERYTHING.
Instead of saying "See here in the Bible; if you twist and turn this passage to breaking-point, it can be constructed as meaning this scientific discovery.", can't you people find these scientific discoveries beforehand and really help mankind towards a better life?
I've spent a good portion of my college evening hours 'debating' Muslims who made similar claims about the Quran and its supposed 'scientific' foreknowledge. I remember fondly thinking that 'at least Christianity only has to deal with creationists' not this kind of crap - I'm sad to see I am proven wrong.
~Actually there is a minor miracle I am not so bad at. I can turn wine into water. Well... y'know what I mean.
On a more serious level, in Mediterranean countries it was/is not uncommon for people to mix water with their wine. It make a long drink out of the the wine and was/is regarded as a civilized way of drinking. Those who did not mix water and wine were often considered hard drinkers. Perhaps Jesus's miracle was a misunderstanding of this custom.
I am a physicist, and reading this weird statement of a madman amuses me deeply.
Now I would like to ask Mr. Schlafly to take nothing but John 2:9, and deduct the complete wavefunction of the hydrogen electron shell from it.
I'm quite sure that Mr. Schlafly would fail miserably by trying this.
By the way, sorry about that outburst earlier on, but Schlafly really pisses me off when he tries to speak about things he knows nothing of, and assume he's right, full stop.
He's a grade-A cunt.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
