Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Three models for the origin of the universe
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 41 (113772)
06-09-2004 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by bob_gray
06-02-2004 8:33 PM


Hi bob_gray98,
I'm just wondering, but why do you think the third one is science and not religion? Most scientists use Poppers definition of a scientific theory: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. ) Is model (3) better testable? I don't see why, but if you do, please explain why.
I see you brought up a new model. Although I don't think anyone really believes this, it's perfectly OK to include it in my proposition. It would be (just as Last Thursdayism) a slightly altered version of model (1). Because I just came to the conclusion in post Message 22 that there are events that could favour model (1), the same holds for these two new models, so these could have a higher or lower scientific status too. I will therefor not include them in my new proposition either. By the way, did you know the author of Ardism (J.R.R. Tolkien) was a christian? His works and also this 'creation story' are heavily based on his catholic background. See: Why Tolkien Says The Lord of the Rings Is Catholic or google "Tolkien catholic".
I think the post Message 22 basically answers your final question.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bob_gray, posted 06-02-2004 8:33 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bob_gray, posted 06-09-2004 4:26 PM Stellatic has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 41 (113913)
06-09-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Stellatic
06-09-2004 4:53 AM


Re: I'm sorry
If I was pissed off it was the obvious untruths.
How could you suggest that you chose to present YEC and OEC as distinct positions to avoid discussing the differences between them ?
How could you suggest that there is nothing obviously wrong to suggest that it would be scientific to throw out every scientific explanation we have in favour of "God did it" ? Science has ALWAYS been about the search for natural explanations and it has found and preferred natural explanations many things that were previously held to be due to God's direct action. YOur prejudiced creationist would say that science should still attribute lightning and plagues to God's action - none of this modern "unscientific" meteorology or medicine ! And why make this obviously false argument other than to make a baseless charge of prejudice ? Obviously maligning critics is a sign of your "openness" and willingness to accept criticism. Pardon me if I don't like being on the receiving end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 4:53 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Stellatic, posted 06-10-2004 12:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 25 of 41 (113956)
06-09-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stellatic
06-09-2004 5:08 AM


Agreed, mostly
Stellatic writes:
I'm just wondering, but why do you think the third one is science and not religion? Most scientists use Poppers definition of a scientific theory: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. )
Is model (3) better testable? I don't see why, but if you do, please explain why.
This is an excellent question and in rereading my post I see that I contradicted myself. When I wrote the previous post I misstated my point. I confused the idea of the development of the universe (after creation) with its creation. I would have to agree with you that all of these theories are equally unverifiable by science and as such I would not classify any of them as science. I believe they all fall into the class of religion.
With this stated I will give you a loose definition of what I see as religion. Religion (in my opinion) is a belief in the origins of the universe and our place in it. Religions for the most part are matters of faith and can’t be verified/falsified.
Model (3) is not testable any more than (2) and I agree with your conclusion that they are indistinguishable. Once you get the universe rolling I think that we both agree on the mechanisms by which it developed.
By the way, did you know the author of Ardism (J.R.R. Tolkien) was a christian? His works and also this 'creation story' are heavily based on his catholic background.
Yes, I was aware of this. (12 years of Catholic school will do that to you ) Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were both Christians of some stripe and if I recall correctly they were good friends. Their faith influenced their writings and I would venture to say in a positive way. They were both adept at using their beliefs in their writing without being preachy.
I think the post Message 22 basically answers your final question.
It did indeed. And I find that I am almost in complete agreement with you except that I would restate your proposition:
Proposition
Science can NOT make a distinction between model (2) and model (3). No conceivable event could favour/verify/falsify one of them and not the other one. Thus neither has scientific status.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 5:08 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Stellatic, posted 06-10-2004 12:28 PM bob_gray has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 26 of 41 (113962)
06-09-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stellatic
05-25-2004 7:43 AM


One point of contention
I disagree. YEC and OEC differ in their statement at what point in time the universe was created. They do not necessarily have to propose a different course of events. If the universe was created some 6000 years ago, it is still possible to calculate further back to find out what the universe would look like if it already existed at that time. You would expect (but even this is not necessarily true) that at some point this calculating back doesn't make much sense anymore and basically we end up at such a point: a spacetime singularity at what usually is called the Big Bang.
I think there is an important point in YEC that you may be missing. As far as I can tell the entire premise of YEC comes from a literal reading of the bible. Unfortunately many of the events they wish to claim happen simply have no evidence to back them up and in most cases are clearly false. The most obvious being a flood which covered all the land. Another point of YEC is that the TOE is false. God created kinds and after that you get variation within a kind but nothing new. In this respect I think that YEC is significantly different than OEC since the latter allows (and in fact embraces) the TOE. Unless you wander into the realm of "Intelligent Design" which is once again religion. But that is a different discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stellatic, posted 05-25-2004 7:43 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 7:25 PM bob_gray has replied
 Message 34 by Stellatic, posted 06-16-2004 7:13 AM bob_gray has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 41 (113993)
06-09-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bob_gray
06-09-2004 4:35 PM


Re: One point of contention
It's worse than that. Stellatic's "YEC position" is :
The universe was created by God approximately 6000 years ago within 6 (24 hour) days.
But to avoid disagreeing with strongly supported scientific conclusions he has to drop the "approximately 6000 years ago within 6 (24 hour) days". For example any event dated more than 6,000 years ago HAS to be either denied or redated to less than 6000 years ago. He can retreat to Omphalism which avoids having to deal with the evidence but such a move in itself negates any claim to scientific validity (as well as being theologically very dubious).
So there is no specifically YEC position he can defend as being scientifically valid - all he has left is "God created the Universe" which makes it identical to his OEC position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bob_gray, posted 06-09-2004 4:35 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by bob_gray, posted 06-10-2004 2:03 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 36 by Stellatic, posted 06-16-2004 9:05 AM PaulK has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 28 of 41 (113995)
06-09-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stellatic
04-21-2004 10:29 AM


I propose a 4th model: ______________________________________________________________________.
This message has been edited by Lam, 06-09-2004 06:48 PM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stellatic, posted 04-21-2004 10:29 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Stellatic, posted 06-16-2004 9:22 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 41 (114150)
06-10-2004 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
06-09-2004 1:50 PM


Hi PaulK,
You could ask me to clarify things or explain what I mean with something in more detail, instead of saying that I'm talking 'complete nonsense', 'obvious untruths' and that everything I say is absurd. But anyway, since you replied, you probably do want a clarification instead of giving it a rest. I will try to clarify my proposition as good as possible. If something remains unclear, just ask.
I wanted to discuss the scientific values of the different models for the origin of the universe. I thought about which possibilities there were and I realized they can be divided into three groups. One group saying the universe originated at the point where calculating further back is impossible (Big Bang) and there was some unknown natural mechanism involved in it. Another group saying basically the same, but with a God instead of a natural mechanism. And then finally a group saying the origin was somewhere between this theoretical starting point and now and that God was the cause of it (I don't know of any theories saying this happened due to a natural mechanism, so I didn't include this fourth possibility). I had to give these groups names, so I gave each of them a name that conforms with the people who generally agree with this model. Maybe I should just have numbered them to avoid misconceptions, but I thought a name would keep clear about which model someone was talking. By giving the models these names, I certainly did not want to include all other statements, that people of these standpoints have, in my models. So by saying that these models have equal scientific status, I don't mean the entire OEC or YEC view has equal scientific status with the atheistic worldview, just the models for the origin in the way I defined them.
Furthermore I should note that in Message 22 I already excluded model (1) from my proposition, because there are events that could make a difference between a young or old universe. Although I realized later I gave examples of this myself in my original post, it was basically you and Kent who convinced me of this. So if you're doubting my openness and willingness to accept criticism, you should have a close look at the rest of the posts.
PaulK writes:
How could you suggest that there is nothing obviously wrong to suggest that it would be scientific to throw out every scientific explanation we have in favour of "God did it" ?
I did'nt suggest this. I only said that if it's unscientific to replace one explanation by another, than it's also unscientific to replace the other with the first explanation. Except of course when one of them is more scientific than the other one, but the point of this whole discussion is to find out whether one of them is more scientific or not.
I didn't want to accuse you of prejudices, what I meant is that it seems to me that you assume model (3) to be scientific beforehand. I concluded this from you using the word 'viable' in post 16 and 'scientific explanation' in post 24. Crudely speaking assuming it's scientific beforehand would be saying model (3) is more scientific because it's more scientific. I want to go much deeper than that.
I hope I cleared things a bit up, let me know if I can do any more.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 1:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2004 1:15 PM Stellatic has replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 41 (114153)
06-10-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bob_gray
06-09-2004 4:26 PM


Re: Agreed, mostly
Hi bob_gray98,
Thanks for your reply, finally this discussion is getting somewhere. I agree with your new proposition. Now I'm just wondering how model (1) fits in all of this. Could we include model (1) again in your new proposition? Or would it be more scientific than (2) and (3)? That would be quite unexpected, wouldn't it! By the way, before people get very angry, this would not say that (1) is more true. It could be more scientific but refuted (so less probable to be true) if there is evidence against it.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bob_gray, posted 06-09-2004 4:26 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bob_gray, posted 06-10-2004 1:52 PM Stellatic has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 41 (114157)
06-10-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Stellatic
06-10-2004 12:18 PM


When what you say is absurd and contains obvious falsehoods I see no reason not to say so.
1) Even in your revised account it is clear that your "third" model ("YEC" in post 1) agrees with your "second" ("OEC" in post 1) that God is the ultimate cause of the universe but disagrees radically from both the other two on the history of the universe (comparatively rejecting more than 99.9999% of it, as measured by timespan).
Your "clarification" only confirms that my original objection was correct. You chose positions that differed obviously and radically on the history of the universe - it is simply impossible that you "carefully" chose positions that did not disagree on that history.
2) In post 12 you insisted that you did not want to place God before any proposed natural mechanisms. As I have repeatedly pointed out since, that requires substituting God for a natural mechanism. Therefore my comment was a direct denial of your own assertion. It makes no claim as to the scientific status of any propose atheistic explanation.
I also note that your "clarification" simply repeats the glaring error I pointed out in post 24. As I stated in post 24 your argument rested on the fact that you could see no scientific difference between proposing "God did it" as an explanation over a viable natural explanation. And as I pointed out in post 24 that is obviously false. Science is founded on providing natural explanations. By definition any viable natural explanation is more scientific than "God did it". You might as well say that it is prejudiced to state that Albert Einstein was a greater scientist than Kent Hovind because a prejudiced creationist could assert the opposite
So now you have given your clarification - and confirmed that you really did say exactly what I thought you had said - NOW is it alright for me to point out that you did indeed produce "complete nonsense" and "obvious untruths" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Stellatic, posted 06-10-2004 12:18 PM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stellatic, posted 06-25-2004 10:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 32 of 41 (114162)
06-10-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stellatic
06-10-2004 12:28 PM


Re: Agreed, mostly
Could we include model (1) again in your new proposition?
Sure, you could certainly include model (1) in my proposition. For that matter you could include any story which explained the inception of the universe. You would also need to include the "extrauniversal egg hatched the universe theory". The point is that science can not and does not try to explain why the universe is here. Science tries to explain what the universe is doing now that it is here. So long as you will agree that the scientific theories we have today are the most scientific models for explaining the existing universe you can have whatever belief you want about where it came from.
Or would it be more scientific than (2) and (3)?
Once again I will reiterate what I said in post #26: OEC doesn't stop at when the universe was created it tries to explain everything thereafter as well. In that respect it is clearly wrong and unscientific. There is no way for me to distinguish between the universe created 14 B years ago and the universe created 6000 years ago with the appearance and behavior of a universe created 14 B years ago (or one created last Thursday for that matter). This is no way invalidates the TOE (just to name one random scientific theory ) or any other scientific theory. If you want to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago that is fine but animals still evolve, apples still fall down, information does not leave black holes and the universe behaves the way it does regardless of what some shepherds thought 3000 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stellatic, posted 06-10-2004 12:28 PM Stellatic has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 33 of 41 (114164)
06-10-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
06-09-2004 7:25 PM


Omphalism???
I agree. His OEC and YEC propositions only vary by a number 6000 vs. 14,000,000,000 (which shows that he doesn't understand "mainstream" OEC). My bottom line is that I don't care what he believes about the origin of the universe, the fact is that it behaves the way we see it with no apparent/provable outside interference. As long as the "why" question doesn't show up in a science class I have no beef with a persons beliefs.
BTW: What does this mean? Omphalism
I looked it up but couldn't find a good definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 7:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2004 8:27 AM bob_gray has not replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 41 (115639)
06-16-2004 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by bob_gray
06-09-2004 4:35 PM


Re: One point of contention
Hi bob_gray98,
bob_gray98 writes:
I think there is an important point in YEC that you may be missing.
Oh sure, there are many aspects of the YEC view (and the others) that I didn't include in the models. PaulK brought some of them up too. In my last reply to him (Message 29) I explained that I only gave these models names like YEC and OEC, for the readers convenience. It appears now to be rather misleading; as if I'm claiming that the full YEC, OEC and atheistic view have the same scientific value. That would indeed be a different discussion.
One last thing. You mentioned the 'most obvious' case of a 'clearly false' claim: a flood. I know this is extremely off-topic, but I'm really interested in the evidence against it. Could you explain this or give some good references. Preferably by e-mail (freezegek@hotmail.com), because otherwise this thread will probably end in chaos.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bob_gray, posted 06-09-2004 4:35 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 41 (115669)
06-16-2004 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bob_gray
06-10-2004 2:03 PM


Re: Omphalism???
Omphalism is the view that the universe just LOOKS old. The name comes form the idea that since Adam was created with a navel - implying a past that did not happen, the universe had to be created with the evidence of a past that did not happen. Of course the extrapolation is fundamentally unsound since while some appearances of age may be necessary to a working universe (like ours), others are not. (And even the supposedly "necessary" appearances of age assume that the universe somehow had to be much the way we see it - rather than say the appearance we would derive from a plain reading of Genesis 1)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bob_gray, posted 06-10-2004 2:03 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 41 (115679)
06-16-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
06-09-2004 7:25 PM


Hi PaulK,
I disagree that dating an event at more than 6000 years ago would disprove the YEC position that easily. In post Message 22 I explained why:
Stellatic writes:
What I meant was, that when you're using one dating method, you shouldn't be surprised to get an age higher than the age of the universe, because you don't know what the situation was at the beginning of the universe. If on the other hand, several dating methods result in the same age, that would be a coincedence, which would tend to falsify theories that have no explanation for this.
However, it doesn't matter for this discussion whether YEC is falsified, but whether YEC can be falsified. It appears that it can indeed be falsified and therefor I already excluded the YEC-model from my proposition, also in post Message 22.
Furthermore I note again that I'm not a YEC myself. I have pointed this out before, so I don't know whether you think I am or not, but "Stellatic's "YEC position"" and "He can retreat to Omphalism" seem to hint at this. By the way, bob_gray98 also asked this, but what is Omphalism exactly? It looks to be something like ignoring all evidence, which is rather stupid and I'm certainly not going to retreat to that.
Oops! I see that you have already explained Omphalism in the mean time. It appears to be much like apparent age and I gave my opinion on that before. If several dating methods result in a consistent age, that's a coincedence for which a model has to give an explanation. If it explains why it is necessary to have this appearance, I think the Omphalism-idea would be OK. But you say they don't have a satisfying explanation in many cases and I think I agree with you.
Greets Stellatic
This message has been edited by Stellatic, 06-16-2004 08:21 AM

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 7:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2004 10:16 AM Stellatic has not replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 41 (115684)
06-16-2004 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by coffee_addict
06-09-2004 7:48 PM


Hi Lam,
That's an interesting model. Certainly there are no false claims in this model. However there is one problem: this model can't be tested even in principle, which makes it just as unscientific as the other ones, if not even more unscientific. Or did you intend it to be some sort of unified model?
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by coffee_addict, posted 06-09-2004 7:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024