Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[1rreducibly Complex]

Creationism 101

1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.

2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.

...

 

[pitabread]

How does one calculate the probability of a universe?

Please show the math.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

How does one calculate the probability of a universe?

Please show the math.

You understand that astrophysicists of decades past have done the math, decades ago?

 

[pitabread]

You understand that astrophysicists of decades past have done the math, decades ago?

Then you should have no problem posting it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Creationism 101

1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.

2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.

...

Citation?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Then you should have no problem posting it.

I'll post it for someone genuinely interested in discussing the topic honestly.

If you're really interested take 5 seconds to keyword search: improbable universe.

That should inform you of the basic science, which you somehow appear to have missed.

 

[pitabread]

I'll post it for someone genuinely interested in discussing the topic honestly.

If you're really interested take 5 seconds to keyword search: improbable universe.

That's not how this works. It's not our job to go find things to support your claims. That's your job.

If you can't be bothered then there isn't going to be any real discussion. All you have is yet another unsupported claim.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

We exist, and we are living creatures. It follows that the universe we live in must be compatible with the existence of life. However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different. What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

...

 

[Bradskii]

A puddle was contemplating the mysteries of the universe. And concluded that there was a God. Because what were the chances that the hole in which it found itself was exactly the same shape and exactly the same size of the puddle itself?

QED

 

[HARK!]

A puddle was contemplating the mysteries of the universe. And concluded that there was a God. Because what were the chances that the hole in which it found itself was exactly the same shape and exactly the same size of the puddle itself?

QED

As the puddle was escaping the hole, and was being reduced to unrecoverable heat; he came to the realization that the hole, to which he was conforming, was as fleeting as his physical existence, thus confirming his creation.

Science Proves Creation

 

[driewerf]

I'll post it for someone genuinely interested in discussing the topic honestly.

If you're really interested take 5 seconds to keyword search: improbable universe.

That should inform you of the basic science, which you somehow appear to have missed.

Such asearch command would introduce a bias in the google search algorithm. This is of course what we don't want. We want a search as unbiased as possible.
So I searched for "introduction to astrophysics book pdf" . If "astrophysics" has done the math decades ago, it should be all over the place by now.
Here are links to the 2 first results:
http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~mika/skript_astro.pdf
https://www.open.ac.uk/science/phys...e.physical-science/files/files/book0_2016.pdf
Please indicate on what page or pages the Universe is deemed improbable. Please also indicate on what page or pages the figure 10^229 is put forward. All astrophysicists would use the same math and come to the same results, wouldn't they?

Kind regards,
driewerf.

 

[HARK!]

Such asearch command would introduce a bias in the google search algorithm. This is of course what we don't want. We want a search as unbiased as possible.
So I searched for "introduction to astrophysics book pdf" . If "astrophysics" has done the math decades ago, it should be all over the place by now.
Here are links to the 2 first results:
http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~mika/skript_astro.pdf
https://www.open.ac.uk/science/phys...e.physical-science/files/files/book0_2016.pdf
Please indicate on what page or pages the Universe is deemed improbable. Please also indicate on what page or pages the figure 10^229 is put forward. All astrophysicists would use the same math and come to the same results, wouldn't they?

Kind regards,
driewerf.

The OP made an assertion. The burden of proof rested on him to back his claim with evidence. He did that.

If someone were to challenge that evidence in an attempt to refute the claim; then the burden of proof would rest on them to provide evidence to support their counterclaim. Does anything in the links you posted refute the initial claim?

If so; please quote the portion which does, and provide us with a page number.

Do all logical arguments rely on the same foundation of logic to come to a logical conclusion?

 

[Bradskii]

As the puddle was escaping the hole, and was being reduced to unrecoverable heat; he came to the realization that the hole, to which he was conforming, was as fleeting as his physical existence, thus confirming his creation.

Science Proves Creation

The hole represents our little planet. It's safe here. It has allowed life. Which has developed according to the parameters available.

You can take two views. The first is that Man is the ultimate aim of the whole shooting match. In which case the odds of this small blue dot (and the general scientific constants of the universe) being a random sequence of events which produced us would be as improbable as the odds quoted earlier.

The second view is that this small blue dot (and the general scientific constants of the universe) are themselves random and that therefore...so are we.

So the hole was either designed exactly as the puddle needed it to be, or it is just a random shape and size which determined the size and shape of the puddle. Equally random.

Needless to say I go with the second option. Which makes any argument regarding the wonders of fine tuning totally irrelevant.

 

[HARK!]

The hole represents our little planet. It's safe here. It has allowed life. Which has developed according to the parameters available.

You can take two views. The first is that Man is the ultimate aim of the whole shooting match. In which case the odds of this small blue dot (and the general scientific constants of the universe) being a random sequence of events which produced us would be as improbable as the odds quoted earlier.

The second view is that this small blue dot (and the general scientific constants of the universe) are themselves random and that therefore...so are we.

So the hole was either designed exactly as the puddle needed it to be, or it is just a random shape and size which determined the size and shape of the puddle. Equally random.

Needless to say I go with the second option. Which makes any argument regarding the wonders of fine tuning totally irrelevant.

The universe is much greater than this little blue dot. The hole is gravity. In absence of the substance that fills that hole, there is no hole.

 

[Bradskii]

The hole is gravity. In absence of the substance that fills that hole, there is no hole.

I have no idea what that means.

This is not a question on which we are going to agree. Unless I am very much mistaken, you believe we are meant to be. If so, then everything that has led us to this point must have been designed. It cannot have been an accident of nature. So if you start with that initial proposal - we are meant to be here, then any argument that proposes a random sequence of events isn't going to make any sense.

Conversely, if one believes that we are the lucky winners of a celestial lottery, then any argument re design is going to make as much sense. That is, none.

The odds are only applicable if there is a desired result. A quick story to illustrate.

I was playing poker in a local pub a few years back. My son was playing as well. I got knocked out so I stood at his table to watch him play. On his deal, he dealt three aces on the flop, another on the turn and a king on the river. The odds of doing that are 1 in 250,000,000 (52x51x50x49x48). Everyone was taking pictures. But it only looked amazing because it was already decided that 4 aces and a king were one of the best 5 cards that could have been dealt (a royal flush would have been more impressive). Any random group of five cards you want to nominate will have exactly the same odds of being dealt.

So the odds only matter if the result is a pre determined one. Otherwise...they're just big numbers that don't signify anything.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

The hole represents our little planet. It's safe here. It has allowed life. Which has developed according to the parameters available.

You can take two views. The first is that Man is the ultimate aim of the whole shooting match. In which case the odds of this small blue dot (and the general scientific constants of the universe) being a random sequence of events which produced us would be as improbable as the odds quoted earlier.

The second view is that this small blue dot (and the general scientific constants of the universe) are themselves random and that therefore...so are we.

So the hole was either designed exactly as the puddle needed it to be, or it is just a random shape and size which determined the size and shape of the puddle. Equally random.

Needless to say I go with the second option. Which makes any argument regarding the wonders of fine tuning totally irrelevant.

Let's say someone enters a casino and play slots. Their 1st pull of the night hits a 10^229 odds winner.

Statistically would chances be good, the pull was random. Or would it be more likely they had somehow rigged the game in their favor. I believe the 2nd explanation is the more honest one. If this question were posed without the religious context, most would likely agree the 2nd explanation is more probable.

In the past atheists used an argument known as "infinite monkey theorem". They claimed an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, could reproduce the complete works of shakespeare. Thus circumventing creationist implications of an improbable universe. Experiments along this course however proved impossible.

Multiverses are another common atheist argument. To circumvent the improbable universe, atheists claim there are an infinite number of parallel universes. The one we live in, simply is the one where many astronomically improbable events occurred, allowing life to develop.

If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The simplest explanation for an improbable universe is a God or Creator guiding a long string of unlikely events into existence. Its unfortunate that many religious demographics close their eyes and minds towards science. They allow atheists to control the discussion.

 

[HARK!]

I have no idea what that means.

This is very easy to understand. Meteorites fall into the hole that is created by the gravitational pull of the matter that composes the earth. Without that matter, that hole wouldn't exist. Once that meteorite falls into that hole; it becomes part of what creates the hole.

This is not a question on which we are going to agree. Unless I am very much mistaken, you believe we are meant to be. If so, then everything that has led us to this point must have been designed. It cannot have been an accident of nature. So if you start with that initial proposal - we are meant to be here, then any argument that proposes a random sequence of events isn't going to make any sense.

Conversely, if one believes that we are the lucky winners of a celestial lottery, then any argument re design is going to make as much sense. That is, none.

The odds are only applicable if there is a desired result. A quick story to illustrate.

I was playing poker in a local pub a few years back. My son was playing as well. I got knocked out so I stood at his table to watch him play. On his deal, he dealt three aces on the flop, another on the turn and a king on the river. The odds of doing that are 1 in 250,000,000 (52x51x50x49x48). Everyone was taking pictures. But it only looked amazing because it was already decided that 4 aces and a king were one of the best 5 cards that could have been dealt (a royal flush would have been more impressive). Any random group of five cards you want to nominate will have exactly the same odds of being dealt.

So the odds only matter if the result is a pre determined one. Otherwise...they're just big numbers that don't signify anything.

This is a reasonable presentation.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's say someone enters a casino and play slots. Their 1st pull of the night hits a 10^229 odds winner.

Statistically would chances be good, the pull was random. Or would it be more likely they had somehow rigged the game in their favor. I believe the 2nd explanation is the more honest one.

If you said that a specific person was going to play a specific machine and win the jackpot on a specific pull and she did, then I'd say that that had been designed to happen. So if Man is that specific person and this planet is where we're going to end up and now is the time, then yes. It's been designed.

If it's a random person and a random pull on a random machine, then someone at some time is going to hit the jackpot. So if we just happened to have evolved here and now then there's no indication that it's been designed that way and the odds aren't relevant.

 

[Shemjaza]

Creationism 101

1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.

2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.

...

1. You couldn't support these assertions last time you brought them up either.

2. Your chain of logic is completely incoherent.

Why is God likely in any way, let alone more likely?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

We exist, and we are living creatures. It follows that the universe we live in must be compatible with the existence of life. However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different. What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

...

Probability calculations without knowing the boundaries of probability space are worthless. This universe exists - probability = 1. Unless you can demonstrate there are other universes, or that the fundamental forces can actually have different values, the calculation stops there. 1 in 10^229 is a number calculated from assumptions and guesses, none of which have evidence to support them.