Subject:
|
Re: The Origins Debate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:13:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1462 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> > > You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> > > that a creator exists!
> >
> > All righty then...
> > (This is one of many categories of proof. Much of the following data is
> > also posted at www.GodAndScience.org, an excellent site for this sort of thing.)
>
> It's not nearly so cranky as many of the others,
If that's a backhanded concession of any sort, I'll take it. :) Another good
site is www.swordandspirit.com. It's chock full of humor - about as far
from cranky as you can yet.
> but it's still largely based on anti-logic.
I don't see this. Can you cite an example?
> Why can't it be the Hindu gods? Or why can't the Hare Krishnas be right?
At this point in the debate, it certainly could be. At the moment I'm just
trying to establish that there was a Creator. If we can agree on that, we
can move on to who that specific Creator is.
> > Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
> > Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
> > remained unchanged since.
>
> But the physical state of the universe was quite different. We're in a very
> small epoch during which stars and so forth can form.
Yes, but the physical *laws* of the universe have remained consistent,
having been established within the first second after the Big Bang. The
laws are the same no matter what the universe's temperature, particle
distribution, or other attributes. When the universe consisted mostly of
free subatomic particles, electric and nuclear forces affected matter the
most. Now that matter has coalesced into molecules, forming stars, planets,
and nebulae, gravity dominates. The forces themselves haven't changed.
> > The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
> > function as we know it and remain functioning until today. The maximum
> > deviation from the following constants would have to be accurate to within
> > the given range, or else one of three things would happen: the universe
> > would not exist now (would have collapsed already), would not sustain
> > matter, or would not sustain life.
> >
> > Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
> > Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
> > Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
> > Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
> > Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
>
> So you're basing it on an NRI universe, which isn't even accepted in the
> scientific community? If you're setting the rules, of course it'll benefit
> your interpretation.
I'll have to defer responding to this until I know what NRI stands for. =/
> These constants are, btw, not agreed upon even within the "mainstream"
> community--all we know for sure is that we're here, and whatever numbers we
> stuff on the constants won't change that.
True. But what's under scrutiny here is not the constants themselves, but
their extremely low tolerance for deviation.
> > If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
> > life would not be possible.
>
> So basically, if the constants were not what they are, we wouldn't be here to
> argue about it. Fair enough. What does that prove? Only that we're alive
> and the constants are what they are, and that the laws of physics are what
> they are. It's like, to quote Vic Stenger, picking 8 cards at random from a
> deck and gasping at the order because the probability of picking THAT EIGHT
> IN A ROW is so very low! Or, if you wish a more immediate and more absurd
> example, being shocked every morning to wake up *yourself* and not *someone
> else*. The chance of being you is only 1:6,000,000,000+ after all (and
> that's before considering the animals)!
But that's applying probability after the fact. Of course the current
probability of the universal constants being what they are now is 100%.
What's in question is the probability of the universe ending up like it is
now taken at the moment of creation. The article you cited even says, "As
pointed out by Stephen Jay Gould (1989), rewinding the tape of evolution and
playing it back again would have infinitesimal probability of once again
producing Homo sapiens."
And the existence in the universe is not like drawing cards or playing the
lottery, anyway. The rules mandate that *somebody* will win. There is no
such mandate if you assume the nonexistence of a Creator, because there
would be no outside authority setting the rules. The lottery would have to
play itself.
Let's say that a Creator indeed came up with the universe. Given that He
has His mind set on making one, one will indeed eventually exist. He could
decide to make any one of an infinite number of mathematically consistent
possible universes, any one of which would mandate a set of physical laws as
perfectly balanced as this universe. Only from that perspective is it
"shocking" to find that He chose this one. Since He intends to make one,
the probability that one eventually is made ("wins") is 100%. But if there
is no Creator, there is no mandate that any universe will "win."
> > From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
> > One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
> > visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American
> > continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000
> > miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt
> > would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile
> > dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as
> > North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of
> > dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he
> > will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (p. 115)
> >
> > Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
>
> This is interesting. Another site says that Ross claims the ratio of protons
> to electrons must be equal. What's the 10^37 thing? It sounds like it's the
> tolerance in the ratio, not the ratio itself.
Yup. It's the tolerance.
> And, the strange thing is, if the ratio were different--the overall system
> would equilibrate. It happened with protons and neutrons very early on.
How? If you have 300 protons and 400 electrons, you end up with a mix of 300
proton-electron pairs and 100 electrons left over. Where do they go?
> Scientifically, by the by, you have to have electrons = protons, because
> those are the two elemental particles a neutron decays into (with an
> antineutrino).
No one said that protons and electrons were only formed from decaying
neutrons; why couldn't the universe have formed with [as a gross
simplification] 100 protons, 3000 electrons, and 10,000 neutrons? The
balance would still be off.
> Does Ross say that there's an insane amount of ionized hydrogen out there?
If protons = electrons, no. I'm not sure of the meaning here.
> And, as a rebuttal to Ross, look here:
>
> http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.stenger-cosmyth.html
>
> (Vic Stenger wrote a few other pieces on Ross writing as well.)
(I want to clarify a position stated in this article: "In the Hawaii
debate...theologian Craig argued that this unimaginable low probability
[let's call it x] illustrates the need for a Creator, because the universe
could not have happened by chance." Certainly it could have; any time x is
not zero there is a chance of the event happening. But the odds would be 1
- x in favor of a Creator, and only x in favor of random chance. I believe
this is what Craig meant.)
I don't see how this article is a rebuttal. Stenger himself describes many
"coincidences" in the universe; he even concedes Gould's quote about the
improbability of humans appearing by chance [above]. He merely restates the
evidence and proposes an alternative hypothesis (the multiverse) to explain
it. This is entirely consistent with the scientific method, but is
certainly not a disproof of a previous hypothesis.
(He does state the "after the fact" lottery scenario mentioned previously.
But I repeat that naturally there is a 100% chance the universe exists now;
the relevant issue is not the current probability but the probability at the
formation of the universe.)
Stenger even admits, "Unfortunately, we have no way of talking about it with
strict rationality. We do not have enough information in the form of
examples of other universes to use as data to draw reasonable conclusions."
Thus the very existence of the multiverse must be accepted as an act of faith!
> It's also worth noting that Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" cadre are old-
> Earth creationists, not YECs. The YECs absolutely *abhor* Ross.
I'm of the old-earth crowd. (Incidentally, www.swordandspirit.com includes
a YEC satire page in its repertoire.)
> Ross is also barely a blip on the screen of mainstream science--his work
> (other works, including the Genesis Question) is usually dismissed because
> it's laughably misinformed on matters of biology, biochemistry, and geology.
> He's an astronomer, after all.
Hm. I haven't heard of him outside of the Internet, so I can't deny this.
I haven't found anything *wrong* on his site, though.
> > For general skepticism, athiests/agnostics should have a look here:
> > http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
>
> There are so many logical leaps on that page I hardly know where to begin.
> 95% is not scientifically acceptable for "proof" much less to take as a
> "given certainty" to start out with.
This is not a scientific page, though - it's a summary of a position.
> The Bible is not a scientific document.
I beg to differ. There are many scientific principles accurately described
in the Bible. Bill Farkas even mentioned in another thread that "in
Medieval Europe, observant Jews would not contract many of the plagues and
diseases that killed so many" because they had a code of hygiene to follow.
> "Information" is not quantifiable.
Huh?
> The presence of an "intelligent creator" does not indicate that it is the
> Christian God.
True. But this can be addressed by investigating the claims (both
scientific and moral) in the Bible.
> It cites the "Origin of Life Prize," which is a red herring--I'll get more
> into that if you wish, but in short they declare themselves that they're *not
> scientists* and there's not a single name of a scholar who's agreed to work
> with them.
By all means, explain.
> Misapplication of Occam's Razor.
This is a matter of opinion, since I've seen it argued that both are the
simpler explanation.
> The specious probability argument cited above.
If you mean the "lottery" analogy, see my response above.
> Finally, the suggestion that you must accept Jesus to be able to test the
> proposition, and if the proposition fails you must not have accepted Jesus in
> your heart (faith). Basically, it boils down to unprovability unless you're
> willing to accept the unfounded suppositions on the page.
That does look a bit weird. But just as you say next, the existence of God
can't be proven conclusively. In order to wholeheartedly believe in God,
you need faith.
> The author of the page states that atheism is based on an unprovable
> assertion, but ignores that the same holds for religion.
He does say that: "In reality, the existence of God cannot be proven or
disproved absolutely." But I agree with your point. Since neither belief
can be proved, both are governed by faith.
> I'd be interested to see if other scientifically-minded folks agree with me.
I consider myself scientifically-minded. :)
> My aversion to Ross isn't so much because of ID theory but because he links
> it necessarily to Christianity, and believes in Special Creation (i.e.,
> doesn't accept that speciation or evolution even happened or can be
> demonstrated--the former of which, at least, is a laughable assertion).
Evolution is still a theory, after all; look here:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html. They do make a
distinction between microevolution (genetic mutation and variance within a
species) which exists and can be observed, and macroevolution (large-scale
changes, such as emergence of new species) which they say is unproven.
If you don't like Ross's www.reasons.org site, or www.GodandScience.org, try
these other sites:
www.swordandspirit.com
www.str.org
www.raptureready.com
They all present rational arguments for a belief in God.
> > Not conclusive evidence. But there is circumstantial evidence, which can be
> > supplemented with faith.
>
> Not supplemented--without the faith, the evidence just isn't really
> evidence. The point is that in order to believe in a God, as GodandScience
> itself implies, you have to first believe in God.
This is true, to a point. But circumstantial evidence goes a long way.
After all, when someone is tried for a crime, and there is no eyewitness,
the jury cannot convict him on anything but circumstantial evidence.
>
> best
>
> LFB
--Ian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) I don't understand this argument. Everything science proposes is theory (hypothesis, actually). It never goes beyond that. Everything science determines is a tentative explanation, pending better. It is not valid to claim that "evolution is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The Origins Debate
|
| (...) It's not nearly so cranky as many of the others, but it's still largely based on anti-logic. Why can't it be the Hindu gods? Or why can't the Hare Krishnas be right? (...) But the physical state of the universe was quite different. We're in a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
