Subject:
|
The Origins Debate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 02:21:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1515 times
|
| |
|
|
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, 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?
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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)!
> 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. And, the strange thing is,
if the ratio were different--the overall system would
equilibrate. It happened with protons and neutrons very
early on.
Scientifically, by the by, you have to have electrons =
protons, because those are the two elemental particles
a neutron decays into (with an antineutrino). Does Ross
say that there's an insane amount of ionized hydrogen out
there?
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.)
It's also worth noting that Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" cadre
are old-Earth creationists, not YECs. The YECs absolutely *abhor*
Ross. 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 astro-
nomer, after all.
> 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. The
Bible is not a scientific document. "Information" is not
quantifiable. The presence of an "intelligent creator" does not
indicate that it is the Christian God. 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. Misapplication of Occam's Razor.
The specious probability argument cited 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. The author of the page states that
atheism is based on an unprovable assertion, but ignores that
the same holds for religion.
I'd be interested to see if other scientifically-minded folks
agree with me. 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).
> 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.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) <snip> Excellent refutation. If Ian had been doing his homework reading what has been said here before maybe he wouldn't be posting essentially the same tired stuff all over again that we've all already heard. If people want to take comfort in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) 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. (...) I don't see this. Can you cite an example? (...) At this (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
