Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science
- Thread starter 1rreducibly Complex
- Start date
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
1. It was not a scientific journal (SciAm?)
2. I'm guessing your reliability criterion (in a scientific journal) vanishes upon reading something you do not think can be twisted to support 'big problem in atheism/evolution '!
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Not only that, it was not even from the main body of Scientific American. It was from the Opinion section! In other words the writer was openly admitting that this was not a scientific article, it was his opinion about a topic in the sciences.
All that the article did was to quote Smolin's claim without any context.
Upvote
0
Lee Smolin’s work can best be described as working on the edges of fringe science and his opinions do not represent a mainstream view.
In fact the mainstream view of a multiverse is quite divided with many scientists dismissing the theory as not even being science as universes are outside our particle horizon and are not causally connected and beyond observation.
This makes the multiverse theory unfalsifiable and while there are ideas that universes may have collided with our own leaving a signature in the cosmic radiation background it is not a mainstream idea.
Instead of theorizing on the odds based on the assumption the multiverse is even viable; the longest odds where scientists hit the jackpot was in detecting the decay of Xe-124 into Te-124 in a dark matter detector.
The half life of Xe-124 is over a trillion times older than the age of the universe.
It is informative to show how scientists were able to demonstrate this as well calculating the odds through the experiments using nothing more than high school maths and chemistry.
Half life as the name suggests is the amount of time it takes for half the number of particles N to decay according to the formula;
T is the half life and t is observation time for a decay to be observed.
In the case of the decay of Xe-124 to Te-124 the number of decay events observed was Nₒ = 126 ± 29 over 177 days of data taking.
The Xe dark matter tank had an isotopic abundance of 10⁻³ of Xe-124.
This means;
Where N is the number of Xe-124 atoms in the dark matter tank, M is the total Xe mass , Na is Avogadro’s number = 6.02 x 10²³ per mol and m is the molar mass of Xe.
The first equation can therefore be expressed as;
Where T is the half life of Xe-124 and calculated from the values N ≈ 5 x 10²⁴, the measured value Nₒ = 126 and t = 177 days.
Tₜ is the age of the universe ≈ 14 billion years.
The probability a Xe-124 atom decaying into a Te-124 is simply Nₒ/N ≈ 2.5 x 10⁻²³ or roughly a 1 in 300000000000000000000000 chance of occurring.
So while the odds are not as impressively remote as the multiverse example, the decay of Xe-124 is basically an example of a statistical outlier.
In fact the mainstream view of a multiverse is quite divided with many scientists dismissing the theory as not even being science as universes are outside our particle horizon and are not causally connected and beyond observation.
This makes the multiverse theory unfalsifiable and while there are ideas that universes may have collided with our own leaving a signature in the cosmic radiation background it is not a mainstream idea.
Instead of theorizing on the odds based on the assumption the multiverse is even viable; the longest odds where scientists hit the jackpot was in detecting the decay of Xe-124 into Te-124 in a dark matter detector.
The half life of Xe-124 is over a trillion times older than the age of the universe.
It is informative to show how scientists were able to demonstrate this as well calculating the odds through the experiments using nothing more than high school maths and chemistry.
Half life as the name suggests is the amount of time it takes for half the number of particles N to decay according to the formula;
T is the half life and t is observation time for a decay to be observed.
In the case of the decay of Xe-124 to Te-124 the number of decay events observed was Nₒ = 126 ± 29 over 177 days of data taking.
The Xe dark matter tank had an isotopic abundance of 10⁻³ of Xe-124.
This means;
Where N is the number of Xe-124 atoms in the dark matter tank, M is the total Xe mass , Na is Avogadro’s number = 6.02 x 10²³ per mol and m is the molar mass of Xe.
The first equation can therefore be expressed as;
Where T is the half life of Xe-124 and calculated from the values N ≈ 5 x 10²⁴, the measured value Nₒ = 126 and t = 177 days.
Tₜ is the age of the universe ≈ 14 billion years.
The probability a Xe-124 atom decaying into a Te-124 is simply Nₒ/N ≈ 2.5 x 10⁻²³ or roughly a 1 in 300000000000000000000000 chance of occurring.
So while the odds are not as impressively remote as the multiverse example, the decay of Xe-124 is basically an example of a statistical outlier.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My last post was the simplified version.
For masochists is the Nature article.
Observation of two-neutrino double electron capture in 124 Xe with XENON1T | Nature
For masochists is the Nature article.
Observation of two-neutrino double electron capture in 124 Xe with XENON1T | Nature
Upvote
0
Well, I wasn't going to make a post when Smolin's article came up, but now that the question about his 'scientific' opinions has been raised, I'd like to know why his claim supporting his argument is not an anthropic assumption?:
Just how is 'typical' not based on anthropic (and un-measurable) thinking?
Upvote
0
While I consider Lee Smolin's work to be in the fringe area I do not consider him a crackpot.
Others such as the infamous Lubos Motl are not so generous.
Ouch!
Others such as the infamous Lubos Motl are not so generous.
Lubos Motl said:
Ouch!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
In think Motl might be the 'Yang', (as in Yin/Yang), to Peter Woit, (the 'Yin')?
Except for his ad-hom style, (particularly in that attack on Smolin), I still don't mind him though .. He's one of the few who can actually strut String Theory, (whilst explaining it).
I wouldn't say that Smolin is crackpot, either.
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Description: Authoritative articles on all sciences by scientists who do the research reported. Edited for the interested layman. Features science and the citizen, computer reactions, the amateur scientists, reviews of current books in science and bibliographies.
Buy OK, it is a "scientific journal" - can you find a single article in SciAM that contains a "materials and methods" section?
Never mind, you can't. But since you claim that as it is a "scientific journal", and that "A Scientific journal is a reliable source.", you should have no problem accepting this, which is from the same journal and same section ('Opinion') that the amazing post #8's citation was to:
Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy
" I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the legalistic wing of creationists loudly insists that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom. Science education in the U.S. is constantly on the defensive against antievolution activists who want biblical stories to be taught as fact. In fact, the first wave of legal fights against evolution was supported by the Klan in the 1920s. Ever since then, entrenched racism and the ban on teaching evolution in the schools have gone hand in hand. In his piece, What We Get Wrong About the Evolution Debate, Adam Shapiro argues that “the history of American controversies over evolution has long been entangled with the history of American educational racism.”
Good that you've seen the light, by your own admission." I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the legalistic wing of creationists loudly insists that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom. Science education in the U.S. is constantly on the defensive against antievolution activists who want biblical stories to be taught as fact. In fact, the first wave of legal fights against evolution was supported by the Klan in the 1920s. Ever since then, entrenched racism and the ban on teaching evolution in the schools have gone hand in hand. In his piece, What We Get Wrong About the Evolution Debate, Adam Shapiro argues that “the history of American controversies over evolution has long been entangled with the history of American educational racism.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Bait and switch - can you explain how Smolin's calculation provides comfort to:
2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.
I'm guessing not.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
But you glossed right over the initial logical fallacy in the OP for some reason, and took to trying to argue in its favor by using a dictionary definition of "journal" to justify your claim that SciAm - a magazine 'edited for the layman' - is a scientific journal (as in one that presents peer reviewed research reports) in which an essay in the 'Opinion' section provided a non-peer reviewed calculation of unknown rigor found in a non-peer-reviewed book.
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Since this is a thing, now...
The fallacy of non sequitur (“it does not follow”) occurs when there is not even a deceptively plausible appearance of valid reasoning, because there is an obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them.
The fallacy of non sequitur (“it does not follow”) occurs when there is not even a deceptively plausible appearance of valid reasoning, because there is an obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
