Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[HARK!]

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.

Faulty premise.


This is not an opinion:

The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.

Can you refute Mr. Smolin or not?

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

...

The Universe exists therefore the probability of the Universe existing is 1.

OB

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faulty premise.


This is not an opinion:



Can you refute Mr. Smolin or not?

Actually it is an opinion. Please note, the link does not go to the source of the quote. It goes to a book by Smolin. There is no way to tell if the OP even honestly reported what Smolin believes. Since Smolin was an atheist I have severe doubts about the interpretation of the OP. And worse yet that was not in the OP's post. My claims about the post were correct.

To be a valid claim he would have to quote Smolin's work and provide a link to it. A book that cannot be read is not evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

I made no such assertion.

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

You told us all to check post 8. Which is nothing more than declaring that as the chances of the 'fine tuning' of the universe are practically impossible (see the odds quoted) then...God must exist.

But you can't use a proposal that requires God to exist in order to make the proposal to reach a conclusion that He exists.

In other words, those odds are meaningless to anyone who doesn't believe that we are ordained to be here. That 'anyone' includes me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You told us all to check post 8. Which is nothing more than declaring that as the chances of the 'fine tuning' of the universe are practically impossible (see the odds quoted) then...God must exist.

But you can't use a proposal that requires God to exist in order to make the proposal to reach a conclusion that He exists.

In other words, those odds are meaningless to anyone who doesn't believe that we are ordained to be here. That 'anyone' includes me.

And no source to the supposed quotes.

Quotes taken out of context without links to the source are worthless in a debate. I can quote mine the Bible too and make it look like it says things that it does not say. Worse yet I can do so in a way that makes it all but impossible to find the actual verse being quoted so no one can correct me by putting it in context unless I supply the actual verse. I know I am taking it out of context if I do so. Again, it is only an education tool for others when they quote mine.

 

[HARK!]

Actually it is an opinion. Please note, the link does not go to the source of the quote. It goes to a book by Smolin. There is no way to tell if the OP even honestly reported what Smolin believes. Since Smolin was an atheist I have severe doubts about the interpretation of the OP.

To be a valid claim he would have to quote Smolin's work and provide a link to it. A book that cannot be read is not evidence.

The OP provided a credible source to support his assertion. So far you haven't measured up to providing any credible source to refute that assertion. The onus of proof is in your court to come up with a more compelling source of evidence than he.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@HARK! I am going to bed. So far there has been no credible evidence presented for the OP. Only quotes taken out of context, Opinion pieces that do not seem to support the OP and other failures. There does not appear to be any evidence for this bad definition for "creationism". The good news is that no one has presented any evidence against the creator. Nor do I think that any will be posted. There appears to be no evidence on either side when it comes to the existence or nonexistence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP provided a credible source to support his assertion. So far you haven't measured up to providing any credible source to refute that assertion. The onus of proof is in your court to come up with a more compelling source of evidence than he.

Where? I saw no links. I saw no quotes. You quoted someone else that also failed.

When and if you post something that needs to be refuted then I will see if I can. Until then the OP lost because he did not make his case. Good night.

 

[HARK!]

You told us all to check post 8. Which is nothing more than declaring that as the chances of the 'fine tuning' of the universe are practically impossible (see the odds quoted) then...God must exist.

But you can't use a proposal that requires God to exist in order to make the proposal to reach a conclusion that He exists.

In other words, those odds are meaningless to anyone who doesn't believe that we are ordained to be here. That 'anyone' includes me.

That doesn't negate the fact that I didn't present the argument.

I'm simply pointing out the logical fallacies that I'm seeing in some of these counterarguments.

 

[HARK!]

Only quotes taken out of context

Bare assertion fallacy, and an ad hominem fallacy regarding the author of that article.

 

[Bradskii]

The OP provided a credible source to support his assertion. So far you haven't measured up to providing any credible source to refute that assertion. The onus of proof is in your court to come up with a more compelling source of evidence than he.

It's not evidence! Not unless you already believe in God. Which is a requirement for accepting those odds as being meaningful.

Here's Smolin himself: Scientific Approaches to the Fine-Tuning Problem

'Yet several of the most popular explanations for the fine-tuning problem fail these tests. One such hypothesis is that there is a god who made the world and chose the values of the parameters so that intelligent life would arise. This is widely believed, but it fails the test for a scientific explanation.

...in my first book, “Life of the Cosmos,” I proposed the “theory of cosmological natural selection,” which predicts that the parameters of physics are fine-tuned to produce many black holes, which is the case in our universe, as we see by its great chemical and astrophysical complexity. It turns out that a universe that makes many stars, and hence many black holes, is also filled with the oxygen and carbon needed for life.'

So two quotes from the same article. One which denies that supposed fantastic odds mean God. And second, that there are valid scientific reasons for why life exists.

And this from the guy we are meant to acceot as the expert on the matter. Enough said, I think.

 

[Bradskii]

That doesn't negate the fact that I didn't present the argument.

It might be a good idea not to reference arguments as a response if you don't accept the actual arguments themselves.

 

[HARK!]

It might be a good idea not to reference arguments as a response if you don't accept the actual arguments themselves.

I think that it's a great idea, in light of clarity, when pointing out the logical fallacies of the counterarguments.

 

[HARK!]

It's not evidence! Not unless you already believe in God. Which is a requirement for accepting those odds as being meaningful.

Here's Smolin himself: Scientific Approaches to the Fine-Tuning Problem

'Yet several of the most popular explanations for the fine-tuning problem fail these tests. One such hypothesis is that there is a god who made the world and chose the values of the parameters so that intelligent life would arise. This is widely believed, but it fails the test for a scientific explanation.

...in my first book, “Life of the Cosmos,” I proposed the “theory of cosmological natural selection,” which predicts that the parameters of physics are fine-tuned to produce many black holes, which is the case in our universe, as we see by its great chemical and astrophysical complexity. It turns out that a universe that makes many stars, and hence many black holes, is also filled with the oxygen and carbon needed for life.'

So two quotes from the same article. One which denies that supposed fantastic odds mean God. And second, that there are valid scientific reasons for why life exists.

And this from the guy we are meant to acceot as the expert on the matter. Enough said, I think.

It is evidence. You can draw your own conclusions about what that evidence represents, just as Smolin did; but it's still evidence, that is unless one can debunk the work of Mr. Smolin.

 

[Bradskii]

It is evidence. You can draw your own conclusions about what that evidence represents, just as Smolin did; but it's still evidence, that is unless one can debunk the work of Mr. Smolin.

Hang on, I'll just check something. Yep, the rego of the car parked next door is 457BVC.

Do you know the chances of that exact rego being associated with exactly that car and have it parked exactly next door at the exact moment I just walked out there? I'd say that the odds are even greater than the ones quoted in post 8.

I'm sure you'd agree that having that happen at random is literally impossible. So who do you think could have arranged that number for that car and have it next door knowing I was going to walk outside to check just at that moment? Whoever it was must be omniscient.

Therefore God exists.

That's the argument you class as evidence. It's a big number. If huge odds are only nonsensical because of God then you can't use them to say then therefore God.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Faulty premise.


This is not an opinion:



Can you refute Mr. Smolin or not?

My post #20. You've been asking for refutation while completely ignoring the one provided long ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP provided a credible source to support his assertion. So far you haven't measured up to providing any credible source to refute that assertion. The onus of proof is in your court to come up with a more compelling source of evidence than he.

Where did he provide such a source? Once again, no quotes no links from the OP. Post 8 was a link to just the title of a book. No actual info was there. And you demonstrated that you do not understand the burden of proof for this discussion.

I do not need to prove the opposite. I made no positive claims. I only needed to show that the OP failed to support his claim, and I did that. Remember when I said that I probably understand the burden of proof better than you do. In this case I do.

Now there may be evidence for creation. I did not prove that there wasn't. I did not even try since I did not need to prove that. All I needed to do is to show that the OP failed to prove his point. And I did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bare assertion fallacy, and an ad hominem fallacy regarding the author of that article.

LOL!! Oh so wrong. You are now failing at logical.fallacies. I made no ad hominem. And there was no "bare assertion". I do not think such a fallacy even exists. If I make a claim and you think it needs support then you need to demand it. I will gladly support any claims that I made.

The fact is that he failed at his use of a supposed source. I went to the source and the supposed quotes were not to be seen. I did not claim that he lied by quote mining. I said that it looked like he did. If a post even looks like a quote mine that is a failure. The supposed claims of Smolin could not be found in the source as given.

What did you think was an ad hominem?

 

[Phred]

What did you think was an ad hominem?

Based upon the way this thread has been going I'm pretty certain that Ad Hominem is the opposite of Bc Hominem. Both are species of humans that roamed the earth immediately before and after the year 1.

 

[Phred]

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

...

This is the magical post #8 that has been referred to over and over and over again. Now if you follow that link to Lee Smolin's book there is no way to read that book or find that reference to those "odds." However, the quote about the book reads like this:

"In The Life of the Cosmos, Lee Smolin offers a theory of the universe that is radically different from anything proposed before. He argues that 'The underlying structure of our world is to be found in the logic of evolution'. He departs from contemporary physicists to explore the idea that the laws of nature we observe may be the partial result a process of natural selection that occurred before the Big Bang."

When discussing probability, which is what we're doing here. We're talking about the odds of something happening. The universe already happened. So just like the lottery winner the odds of the universe being the way that it is are already known. And if we don't live in a universe but rather a multiverse where ever conceivable combination of laws is expressed... then there are universes out there with all of those different combinations. We live in the one that suits us because we CAN live in the one that suits us. "odds" are meaningless.

Especially since we have no way to ever know exactly what causes those variables to click into place. Or even IF they are variables to begin with. For all we know the universe is the way that it is because it can't be any other way. Speculating on these things is interesting to physicists and mathematicians but to anyone else it's an effort in frustration. The answer will always be the same.

It is what it is.

If this is what you're basing your "scientific argument" for creation and for the existence of God upon... surely you can do better.