|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
I occasionally - but not very often - feel sorry for modern day creationists.
Once upon a time all they had to do was learn their book then make up fantasies about what it means. These days they need PhDs in molecular genetics, evolutionary theory, geology, big physics and advanced maths. Soon they'll have to add chemistry too. Then they have to create their own versions of each discipline - it's an extraordinary feat. They are very special people, these modern creationists. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation
Really? Please provide references or a proof. That's an unsupported assertion. I asked for a reference or proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
It appears to me that Hugh Ross has figured out what to make of it and has developed a reasonable and testable creation model. After all this blather you can't bring yourself to present, much less defend, this alleged model. The tests discussed in the last thread were mainly attempts to sneak creationist ideas into science. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Still no evidence from DT yet?
Or a response to a H0 of his god not existing?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Or a response to a H0 of his god not existing? Designtheorist has answered about 1/4 of the replies he's gotten, with many of his responses generating more questions. And the thread has been open less than a week. Be patient.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This is one thing I struggle to understand.
dt writes:
Why do so many creationists always want to quote from a few scientists who publish popular books or appear on tv? Why not rather quote from the scientific research of scientists? I mean, that's what science is about; research. You know, from thesises, research papers, etc.? Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design. Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose and many, many more have all written and spoken about fine-tuning and the appearance of design. The question is: At what point to we start putting this evidence together and start building a theory around design? There needs to be a way to do that scientifically. Victor Stenger has written a book titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a really bad book. You know the book is not going to be what is generally understood as science when Stenger says things like "the moon might be real" and "we can make gravity be whatever we want it to be." Stenger has broken with the other atheists who all express acceptance of fine-tuning, but don't know what to make of it. As an example, I'll provide some US figures. Just in the US in 2008, there were 5000 people with PhD's in Astronomy/Astrophysics and 41 500 in physics. Living scientists. With PhD's. That's right, just in the US. This excludes the figures from the rest of the world. This also excludes MSc's, of which you'll find many, many more. Why are the hundreds of thousands of other specialists, with the same qualifications as the popular scientists, always ignored by creationists? Too much work to read more than a few creationist websites?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design. Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose and many, many more have all written and spoken about fine-tuning and the appearance of design. The question is: At what point to we start putting this evidence together and start building a theory around design? There needs to be a way to do that scientifically. Let's use the lottery as our example. For ease of mathematics, let's say that the odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 100 million. Let's also assume that there has been one winner in each of the last 5 lotterys. Those winners are John A., Ralph P., Frank L., Susan B., and Polly P, in that order. What are the chances that those specific people would have won the lottery? Well, that is 1 in 100 million to the 5th power, or 1 in 10^40. That's a pretty big number. We can only assume that the lottery had to be fine tuned so that those specific people would win. But is that right . . . What this model ignores is all of the losers. That is what you are ignoring as well. You need to show that our universe is the only universe in existence. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake as the lottery example above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Taq writes: You need to show that our universe is the only universe in existence. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake as the lottery example above. Actually, he's making an obvious mistake if there's only one "universe"*. The jagged puddle will inevitably fit the jagged pothole whether there's one pothole or trillions. Looking at one world and saying "how amazing! The physical nature of this world is exactly right for its contents" is always silly. What else would we expect? If the world was wrongly "tuned" for something it contained, then a good argument could be made for the supernatural insertion of that something into the world. Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism. The pothole must necessarily fit its puddle. Ironically, many I.D. folk see any confirmations of the fitness of the world for life as supporting evidence for supernatural design. Then they proceed to contradict themselves by arguing for the impossibility of a natural origin of life, and for the impossibility of the natural evolution of complex creatures. In other words, they argue that this world is fine tuned for life and isn't fine tuned for life. Personally, I find that hilarious. *I prefer the term "world" for the known universe, and the phrase "many worlds" for the idea that there might be others. Surely all worlds should be part of what's universal. Hopefully, the word "multiverse" will disappear from the language. WTF is a "verse" in this context?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Actually, he's making an obvious mistake if there's only one "universe"*. The jagged puddle will inevitably fit the jagged pothole whether there's one pothole or trillions. I think this is an unjustified denial that there is a fine tuning issue. I think there is an issue. With the wrong combination of constants we might end up with a universe in which there is no fusion, or no supernovae, or in which the inflationary period of the Big Band does not exist, etc. I think many of the possibilities cannot be solved by life evolving to fit whatever conditions are produced. If indeed the constants could be changed in arbitrary ways, the result might be no universe or a universally life free universe. There is lots of stuff written on the topic, and a quick search on google scholar for fine tuning turns up as many scholarly journal papers on the topic as you might care to read. It is certainly a bogus claim that scientists simply 'don't know what to make' of fine tuning, as someone has claimed.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: bluegenes writes: Actually, he's making an obvious mistake if there's only one "universe"*. The jagged puddle will inevitably fit the jagged pothole whether there's one pothole or trillions. I think this is an unjustified denial that there is a fine tuning issue. I think there is an issue. With the wrong combination of constants we might end up with a universe in which there is no fusion, or no supernovae, or in which the inflationary period of the Big Band does not exist, etc. Exactly. If the pothole were a different shape, the puddle would be. Why is that an "issue"?
I think many of the possibilities cannot be solved by life evolving to fit whatever conditions are produced. Certainly not. I didn't suggest that it would or could.
If indeed the constants could be changed in arbitrary ways, the result might be no universe or a universally life free universe. Indeed. If the history of the U.S.A. had followed a different course, you'd be unlikely to have a president called Barak Obama.
NoNukes writes: There is lots of stuff written on the topic, and a quick search on google scholar for fine tuning turns up as many scholarly journal papers on the topic as you might care to read. It is certainly a bogus claim that scientists simply 'don't know what to make' of fine tuning, as someone has claimed. I think that the reason that many religious people have an obsession with fine tuning is that they assume that life (and particularly our species) are the central objective of the world. When naturalists like Martin Rees point out that the constants of the universe are exactly right for life, they think back to front, and see this as a sign of design. If you assume that the puddle was intended by a creator to be a particular shape, it will appear to you that he must then have intentionally shaped the pothole exactly as it is, especially when you can conceive of a virtually infinite number of other shapes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You seem to have a strong skepticism of what is now a well studied and well known phenomenon, No my skepticism isn't that a phenomenon is being observed. My skepticism is the interpretations being tagged to those observations. The interpretation is that new photons are being created from nothing and therefore this could explain where the universe came from. Again we don't know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere. Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum, then how do we know that it is not a result of those conditions? Next, most physicists tell us that nothing can theoretically exist smaller than a planck. So when you wind everything backwards to a time when it was the size of a zero point of energy, you have no space left for a quantum fluctuation to occur. And finally, if the casimir effect is truly the creation of new photons from nothing, then you must completely throw out the law of conservation of energy which makes this an impossible event. Personally I think that the casimir effect is some unexplained conversion process taking place, not the creation of new particles from nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
JBR: Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation
JonF: Really? Please provide references or a proof. How about you provide me with just one example where the phenomena has been observed apart from the parameters of the universe, and I'll withdraw my comment. Otherwise I cite them all as proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
How about you provide me with just one example where the phenomena has been observed apart from the parameters of the universe, and I'll withdraw my comment. Otherwise I cite them all as proof. Huh? Your message seems to have no relation to the issue. You claimed "Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation". The parameters and universe we observe are, possibly, the result of a fluctuation and not precursors of any kind. We see that the existence of our Universe is sufficient for there to be quantum fluctuations, but that's not proof that it's necessary. If you can't find a scientific reference or provided some meaningful support for your claim that's OK, it's pretty obvious you have no clue about big bang cosmology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum False, as I pointed out several days ago, with many examples. Do you understand Feynman diagrams? Can you identify hte virtual particles in the image, and explain why we can't ignore them inm our computations without getting the wrong answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum ... * sighs * Virtual particle - Wikipedia Stop making stuff up. You know what would be nice? It would be nice if creationists took a passing interest in the things they talk about.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024