Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[HARK!]

How so? I did not see any links to reliable sources.

A Scientific journal is a reliable source.

I only saw an unsupported claim. And yes, the argument that he made as an argument from ignorance.

You might do well to follow the link in the link that I provided.

I've seen the math broken down relative to various aspects of creation. Philip Goff isn't just talking off the top of his head.

The logical rules concerning burden of proof haven't changed.

This might help:

Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic.

 

[Yttrium]

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 hit the nail on the head with his puddle example. Our form of life works with the properties of the universe. If the properties were different, a different form of life might have developed. We can't predict the odds of a different form of life developing. Any form of life developing would fit whatever properties the universe possessed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Scientific journal is a reliable source.



You might do well to follow the link in the link that I provided.

I've seen the math broken down relative to various aspects of creation. Philip Goff isn't just talking off the top of his head.

The logical rules concerning burden of proof haven't changed.

This might help:

Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic.

I understand the burden of proof. Probably far better than you do. You are implying that I shifted the burden of proof when I did no such thing.

And we were talking about the OP. He did not support his claims with valid sources. Not even in post 8. He did a bit of quote mining there. That is not evidence. In fact it is unfortunately usually done to mislead people.

Nor did I see any link to scientific journals by you. Could you please post it again.

By the way, I am not the only one that spotted the failure of the OP.

 

[Bradskii]

A Scientific journal is a reliable source.



You might do well to follow the link in the link that I provided.

I've seen the math broken down relative to various aspects of creation. Philip Goff isn't just talking off the top of his head.

The logical rules concerning burden of proof haven't changed.

This might help:

Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic.

I obviously did a bad job in explaining why quoting the odds doesn't matter in the first instance.

They are only worth considering if the outcome is a desired one. That is, if we are not the random results of a random universe. That is, if the fact that we are here has been determined. By someone. So to say that the odds are too incredible for us to randomly have evolved is assuming that God has this planned.

So you can't use that as a proposal to reach the conclusion. Because you have assumed the conclusion in the proposal. It's a logical fallacy. If we write it out in full, it looks exactly like this:

1. If the odds against us randomly being here are one in a gazillion, hence not possible, then God must have planned it.
2. Therefore there is a God.

In other words, if there is a God then there must be a God. Now, if you think that's a reasonable argument then we're going to have to disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I obviously did a bad job in explaining why quoting the odds doesn't matter in the first instance.

They are only worth considering if the outcome is a desired one. That is, if we are not the random results of a random universe. That is, if the fact that we are here has been determined. By someone. So to say that the odds are too incredible for us to randomly have evolved is assuming that God has this planned.

So you can't use that as a proposal to reach the conclusion. Because you have assumed the conclusion in the proposal. It's a logical fallacy. If we write it out in full, it looks exactly like this:

1. If the odds against us randomly being here are one in a gazillion, hence not possible, then God must have planned it.
2. Therefore there is a God.

In other words, if there is a God then there must be a God. Now, if you think that's a reasonable argument then we're going to have to disagree.

I think that he may have made the mistake of mischaracterizing atheism. Not all atheists are hard atheists. In fact most appear to be soft, or agnostic atheists. If one does not believe in a God due to lack of evidence for that God one is almost always a soft atheist. We are not trying to disprove God. There is no need to do so since there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for that God. If someone provides sufficient reliable evidence we would change our minds. No reliable evidence is a long way away from sufficient reliable evidence.

 

[HARK!]

I understand the burden of proof. Probably far better than you do.

Then why do I find myself having to school you on the subject?

You are implying that I shifted the burden of proof when I did no such thing.

No I'm not. I suppose your confusion stems from jumping in on a conversation that I was having with someone else.

And we were talking about the OP. He did not support his claims with valid sources. Not even in post 8. He did a bit of quote mining there. That is not evidence. In fact it is unfortunately usually done to mislead people.

Nor did I see any link to scientific journals by you. Could you please post it again.

I didn't post a link to a scientific journal. I posted a link to Post#8.

I said that the link could be found there. I clearly stated that it was a link to the link.

 

[Bradskii]

I think that he may have made the mistake of mischaracterizing atheism. Not all atheists are hard atheists. In fact most appear to be soft, or agnostic atheists. If one does not believe in a God due to lack of evidence for that God one is almost always a soft atheist. We are not trying to disprove God. There is no need to do so since there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for that God. If someone provides sufficient reliable evidence we would change our minds. No reliable evidence is a long way away from sufficient reliable evidence.

I've used this metaphor before and it might be valid.

I think belief is like a flywheel. You start to believe something and the flywheel starts turning. For whatever reason, the strength of your belief increases. Maybe more evidence. Maybe you've thought about it more. Maybe a lot of people you know are convinced. So the flywheel turns faster.

It can reach a point where, if you think that you are absolutely certain, then there's no evidence, no argument, no testimony that's going to slow that sucker down.

It's good not to get it up to that kind of speed. We should always be able to slow it down. And at least allow for the possibility of it perhaps eventually reversing direction.

 

[HARK!]

1. If the odds against us randomly being here are one in a gazillion, hence not possible, then God must have planned it.
2. Therefore there is a God.

I made no such assertion.

This is what is known as strawnman argument. It's a logical fallacy.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I made no such assertion.

This is what is known a s strawnman argument. It's a logical fallacy.

Agreed, you did not make this argument, but the op did, and it is a stawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why do I find myself having to school you on the subject?

Oh my, such projection.

No I'm not. I suppose your confusion stems from jumping in on a conversation that I was having with someone else.

No confusion on my part.

I didn't post a link to a scientific journal. I posted a link to Post#8.

I said that the link could be found there. I clearly stated that it was a link to the link.

There were no links to scientific journals in post 8 either. It appears that once again I am not the confused one.

 

[HARK!]

There were no links to scientific journals in post 8 either. It appears that once again I am not the confused one.

Scientific American covers the advances in research and discovery that are changing our understanding of the world and shaping our lives. Founded 1845, it is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States and now reaches more than 10 million people around the world each month through its website, print and digital editions, newsletters and app. Authoritative, engaging features, news, opinion and multimedia stories from journalists and expert authors—including more than 200 Nobel Prize winners—provide need-to-know coverage, insights and illumination of the most important developments at the intersection of science and society. Scientific American is published by Springer Nature. As a research publisher, Springer Nature is home to other trusted brands including Springer, Nature Research, BMC and Palgrave Macmillan.

About Scientific American

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific American covers the advances in research and discovery that are changing our understanding of the world and shaping our lives. Founded 1845, it is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States and now reaches more than 10 million people around the world each month through its website, print and digital editions, newsletters and app. Authoritative, engaging features, news, opinion and multimedia stories from journalists and expert authors—including more than 200 Nobel Prize winners—provide need-to-know coverage, insights and illumination of the most important developments at the intersection of science and society. Scientific American is published by Springer Nature. As a research publisher, Springer Nature is home to other trusted brands including Springer, Nature Research, BMC and Palgrave Macmillan.

About Scientific American

View attachment 302374

View attachment 302376

Scientific American is a popular science magazine. It is not a scientific journal. In the context used a scientific journal is a professional peer reviewed scientific journal. Do we have to refer to the Bible as the Christian Bible every time the word is used at this site? When speaking of scientific journals one should understand what they are in science based threads.

Also how does that article support the OP? It merely states that what is taken as evidence for the multiverse may not be evidence for it.


By the way, your claims of it being a scientific journal will not be taken seriously by any scientists that I know of:

Scientific American | American publication

EDIT: And even if Scientific American was a professional peer reviewed scientific journal that article still fails. Not everything in a scientific journal is peer reviewed. They are often in a different section and they will have a header such as this:

"SPACE | OPINION"

Does that look familiar? That means that even if it was from Nature that it would not count as a peer reviewed article.

 

[HARK!]

Scientific American is a popular science magazine. It is not a scientific journal.

jour·nal
/ˈjərnl/
noun

1. a newspaper or magazine that deals with a particular subject or professional activity:


Also see: Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

jour·nal
/ˈjərnl/
noun

1. a newspaper or magazine that deals with a particular subject or professional activity:


Also see: Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic.

I am sorry that is a huge fail. A person might as well claim that this is "the Bible" (By the way, it isn't, I am only using this as an example of your failure):

You are guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

Also, I added to that post in an edit. Did you see how that was an opinion piece? It is not scientific evidence. And please, do not accuse others of your failures. If you understood the burden of proof we would not be having this discussion.

 

[HARK!]

If you understood the burden of proof we would not be having this discussion.

I'll highlight where you have been failing:

In a debate, the burden of proof lies typically with the person making a claim; the opposing side doesn’t have a burden of proof until evidence has been provided for the original argument. However, once the evidence has been provided, it’s up to the opposing side to show if the evidence is insufficient. If the opposing side argues that your claim is invalid, then, in turn, the burden of proof is on them to justify the disagreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go over the concept of scientific evidence. I have a quote from the Wiki article on scientific evidence, but I can find plenty of other sources that say essentially the same thing:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific control

To have scientific evidence on must first have a testable hypothesis. What is the testable hypothesis? What reasonable test based upon the merits of the hypothesis could possibly refute it? If you cannot name a test then it is not a testable hypothesis and by definition there is no scientific evidence for it.

There is a reason that scientist came up with that definition. Scientists are human too and far too often people would say "that's not evidence" when presented with evidence. These standards make it clear. It also puts the burden of proof upon the denier if they say that there is no evidence. The person positing the new idea only has to show that his idea is testable and that the observations support his claims.

It also stops people from claiming evidence when all that they have is an ad hoc explanation at best. The claims of the OP and those supporting him appear to fall into this category.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll highlight where you have been failing:

In a debate, the burden of proof lies typically with the person making a claim; the opposing side doesn’t have a burden of proof until evidence has been provided for the original argument. However, once the evidence has been provided, it’s up to the opposing side to show if the evidence is insufficient. If the opposing side argues that your claim is invalid, then, in turn, the burden of proof is on them to justify the disagreement.

LOL! Where have I failed? My only claim is that the OP failed since he had a failed premise, which was explained, and he had no evidence. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.

Once again, no scientific evidence has been provided for the OP. An opinion piece from a popular magazine is not scientific evidence. By the way, I did not provide a link for my claim on scientific evidence, but would be more than happy to do so. I could do so from multiple sources.

 

[HARK!]

I am sorry that is a huge fail. A person might as well claim that this is "the Bible" (By the way, it isn't, I am only using this as an example of your failure):

It's your turn to come up with a credible source which refutes the article linked in Post #8.

This is how logical debates work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's your turn to come up with a credible source which refutes the article linked in Post #8.

This is how logical debates work.

There is no need to. First off it is not scientific evidence. It is an opinion piece from a popular science magazine. Did you not see the quote I posted from the article? That is a failure on two different levels. Third an article on its own is not "evidence". The person only linked an article. He did not quote from it and show how that supported his claims. That is a third level of failure. In other words that claim is wrong on at least three different levels. There was nothing posted that needed refutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I said "The Bible is full of contradictions" and then just posted a link to the Bible would you demand that others refute my claim? I would need to show how the Bible is full of contradictions. A link to a weak article is not evidence on its own if the person making that claim is not willing to quote from it and show how it supports his beliefs. I saw nothing in there that supported the OP.