|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No naturalistic explanation for the cause of the Big Bang works. The Ekpyrotic model "works":
Something happened at the beginning of the universe that was beyond the realm and power of nature to perform. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. Color me unconvinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe...
So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you are going to equate this new model, the RTB Creation Model, with phlogiston theory or the geocentric model, why bother to interact with me at all? Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. You are not showing you are prepared to think scientifically about the evidence I'm presenting. The RTB Creation Model starts with assuming that the Bible is error free. There ain't nothing scientific about that. In fact, its even less scientific than the phlogiston theory or the geocentric model.
I came here hoping for a debate You should start by presenting the evidence for your position. Have I missed it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But, at least, he is engaging the evidence. I cannot find anyone in this debate who is willing to do that. I don't get it. What do you think could possible go wrong if you present evidence and people refuse to engage it, or just hand wave it away, or whatever? I mean, lets assume you're 100% correct and you have some great evidence. Then you show it to the stupid evolutionists and they laugh it off. So what? What would that do other than make us out to be a bunch of idiots? How could that be any reason for you to withhold it? Because honestly, you're coming off as a charlatan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why should we care what Stenger and/or Penrose have said?
It is my view that a commitment to atheism leads people away from the correct scientific view. And that's your view because of some stuff that one or two guys wrote about one topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why should we care what Stenger and/or Penrose have said?
Because designtheorist is literate enough to misinterpret scientists, but not scientifically literate enough to misinterpret actual science. Oh, I dunno. I don't feel like I have a good measure of his scientific literacy. I feel like this is a matter of a religious person preferring testimony over empirical evidence. ABE: Okay. He's clearly a charlatan. ABE2: Its one of the religious tricks: "Let me identify who will accept my evidence without question, that way I'll know who is susceptible to gullibility before I actually have to expose myself." Its the same trick that other predators use. Like, sexual ones n'stuff. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There are scientific papers written on these topics. Typically, the degree of fine-tuning is expressed as a percentage of the range of values possible for each parameter. You can show this with links to the papers rather than just asserting it.
I accept that you do not have this information readily available to you, but I would think it would be possible for you to consider the issue based on percentages and the number of parameters - which is exactly what I proposed you do. That sounds like a charlatan.
It is unanswerable with the evidence available to you You are lying about what evidence is available. This is you dangling a supposed carrot.
Certainly, rare outcomes happen randomly in nature all the time but they do not typically build on one another. If more evidence were available to you, would you attempt a scientific assessment? What would it take for you to conclude that fine-tuning could not be a result of random chance? This is you hyping your supposed evidence before you actually present it. The evidence would speak for itself, it don't need no hype. That's how we know you're lying. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You can show this with links to the papers rather than just asserting it.
Yes, I can but I really think some context would be helpful to you first. Well you're wrong. Scientific papers don't need context, they speak for themselves. But I don't even believe that you have any papers anymore, I think this whole charade is a big farce. This is just you stalling some more and dangling that supposed carrot that you're only going to expose to those who have already shown they are gullible enough to accept it before they even see it. And I'm not reading any books. Post some sort of evidence, or stop lying about having it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Why is it that when put up time comes around, designtheorist is always found waiting for that library to re-open after the Christmas holidays, even when the calendar tells us it's baseball season? He's clearly a charlatan. Its one of the religious tricks: "Let me identify who will accept my evidence without question, that way I'll know who is susceptible to gullibility before I actually have to expose myself." I believe it is a form of predation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm convinced he's lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
When people believe they have good evidence, they ring the bells and shout out: "Look at this". And they show it to you.
When people take the route of withholding it, trying to hype it up, dangling it just out of reach, and trying to gauge the reaction without having to actually expose it, then they know that they do not have good evidence because they realize they have to rely on other things besides the evidence. If that person is claiming they have good evidence while displaying that they know that it is not good evidence, then its safe to say that they are posting a deliberate falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
From Message 344:
I didn't mean the papers needed context, I meant that you needed context. What's the difference? I don't need to have context for a scientific paper. They stand on their own.
I think you are too lazy to read a book. I spend most of my day in front of a computer screen. I can sit here at work and read all kinds of stuff on the internet. But I'm not about to be sitting at my desk just reading a book, then people will know for sure that I'm not working. And I figure the fact that I'm pushing almost 8000 posts here would show that I'm not particularly lazy.
Geez, did you bother to click on the link in Message 330? Actually I did. It talked about the Hoyle state needing to be at a specific value in order for both carbon and oxygen to exist in the quanitites needed for life as we know it. If its too high then there won't be enough carbon and if its too low then there will be too much cabon for there to be enough oxygen. It skated by the audience because we don't debate by link here; your arguments are expected to be written by yourself. Its even in the rules you agreed to when you signed up:
quote: But anyways, here you have it: The Hoyle state needs to be at a specific value in order for both carbon and oxygen to exist in the quanitites needed for life as we know it. If its too high then there won't be enough carbon and if its too low then there will be too much cabon for there to be enough oxygen. Can you turn that into a scientific argument for a Creator God? From Message 347:
How can I show you evidence for other things when you won't admit gravity is real???? In the exact same way that others here do it: You explain what the evidence is in your own words to the audience and then you provide a link to back up what you are claiming. What people are willing to admit is irrelevant to your abilities to provide evidence. If fact, we are unable to prevent you from posting the evidence.
I show you evidence of Stenger's ridiculous comments that contradict GR and people still want to defend him. It's ludicrous. You're wrong about what Stenger said and you're wrong about what GR says, but that's beside the topic. From Message 346:
What papers did you cite? I must have missed that comment. I have been the only one citing papers and authoritative websites. Check Message 315.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
OP never delivered.
Message 61
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024