Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Job 33:6]

The "jackpot" has been hit many times. Man is just one product of evolution. We are not the only winner by a long shot.

I think of it more in terms of the constants of the universe. In that there is just one winner as far as we know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think of it more in terms of the constants of the universe. In that there is just one winner as far as we know.

When it comes to the universe we can only experience the one that we live in. We have no idea if our universe is the only one. It may be. But then it may not be possible for it to exist without all of the constants that it has. We know it would be different if the constants were different, but we do not even know if that is possible.

 

[Job 33:6]

When it comes to the universe we can only experience the one that we live in. We have no idea if our universe is the only one. It may be. But then it may not be possible for it to exist without all of the constants that it has. We know it would be different if the constants were different, but we do not even know if that is possible.

My understanding is that if we took something like the constant for gravitation for example, if this constant were to be adjusted, we would either have a universe collapse in on itself and thus we wouldn't be here to tell the tale, or if these forces were weaker, we wouldn't have systems bound by gravity to host life.

Stephen hawking's has a few quotes floating around on the odds against our universe as well. Who could be a better source but him?

 

[Phred]

My understanding is that if we took something like the constant for gravitation for example, if this constant were to be adjusted, we would either have a universe collapse in on itself and thus we wouldn't be here to tell the tale, or if these forces were weaker, we wouldn't have systems bound by gravity to host life.

Stephen hawking's has a few quotes floating around on the odds against our universe as well. Who could be a better source but him?

What you're doing is trying to show by any means possible that we are here and that it's so unlikely that we're here so it must be the result of God.

What you don't recognize through your own delusion is that if the odds against us are high, what are the odds against an omnipotent, all-knowing, eternal being?

Going past that, can you imagine being alone all this time? And how did God come to know everything? You aren't just poofed into existence one day knowing everything. God, like any omnipotent, eternal being had to learn everything. So where are all the mistakes God made? Where are all the Adam and Eves where he created Eve by taking a leg and not a rib?

Or the Noahs where he had them build a cave to hide from the flood?

These worlds are out there somewhere...

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is that if we took something like the constant for gravitation for example, if this constant were to be adjusted, we would either have a universe collapse in on itself and thus we wouldn't be here to tell the tale, or if these forces were weaker, we wouldn't have systems bound by gravity to host life.

Stephen hawking's has a few quotes floating around on the odds against our universe as well. Who could be a better source but him?

Yes, but we do not know if the gravitational constant could be different. If it was different the universe as we know it would not exist. But it might have to be that way.

An example of this are Kepler's Laws. When he discovered them there was no understanding why they had the values that they did. One could have proposed different possible values for the constants in those laws and speculated how different the universe might have been. Newton later came up with his Law of Universal Gravitation and that explained why Kepler's Laws have those values.

Any argument involving the constants of the universe is essentially an argument from ignorance since we do not know if those values could be different.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but we do not know if the gravitational constant could be different. If it was different the universe as we know it would not exist. But it might have to be that way.

An example of this are Kepler's Laws. When he discovered them there was no understanding why they had the values that they did. One could have proposed different possible values for the constants in those laws and speculated how different the universe might have been. Newton later came up with his Law of Universal Gravitation and that explained why Kepler's Laws have those values.

Any argument involving the constants of the universe is essentially an argument from ignorance since we do not know if those values could be different.

Hm, well what about that article I posted above? Let's take a look at that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hm, well what about that article I posted above? Let's take a look at that.

New Tests Suggest a Fundamental Constant of Physics Isn't The Same Across The Universe

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's interesting about this analogy of the person playing slots, is that it's just one person who pulls one time. Unlike the infinite monkeys on typewriters. It's not just some person [of many] at some time [also of many]. As far as we can tell, the jackpot was hit the one and only time.

It's analogous to walking into a casino and seeing someone wins a payout. You don't know how long she's been playing or how many other people are playing, and you don't know how easy it is to get a payout.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

New Tests Suggest a Fundamental Constant of Physics Isn't The Same Across The Universe

Here's an article that suggests that a universe could exist with different values for fundamental constants. This being our own in this instance.

If the observations and calculations hold up under independent verification, they could be taken as supporting the cosmological multiverse concept, i.e. that there are regions, very far away, where the physical parameters are significantly different to those we experience, and we inevitably find ourselves in the part where they're compatible with (stars, planets, and) life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Bradskii]

What's interesting about this analogy of the person playing slots, is that it's just one person who pulls one time. Unlike the infinite monkeys on typewriters. It's not just some person [of many] at some time [also of many]. As far as we can tell, the jackpot was hit the one and only time.

If it was one slot machine and one person and she pulled the lever one time then it must have been designed so that she'd win it. But it ain't like that.

Go back a few hundred million years and consider all the creatures on the planet. Every act they make is a pull of the lever on an infinity of evolutionary slot machines. They have to gamble every day. Some win enough to keep playing. And that's actually the aim of the game, because you don't stop playing and take home the winnings. It's compulsory to keep playing. To keep pulling that lever.

And some bust out and lose everything. We don't see them again. And some keep winning - a little more, a little less. But just enough to keep them in the game. And one of them hits the jackpot, so she (and her family) are way out in front of everyone else. Purely by chance. Someone has to be in front at each stage, and Homo sapien was the lucky winner.

Stick around long enough and we might lose everything and someone else will be the front runner.

 

[Job 33:6]

If the observations and calculations hold up under independent verification, they could be taken as supporting the cosmological multiverse concept, i.e. that there are regions, very far away, where the physical parameters are significantly different to those we experience, and we inevitably find ourselves in the part where they're compatible with (stars, planets, and) life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't think this really changes the circumstances. Unless it were the case that the universe in one extreme pole were to have one extreme value of a constant, whole the other pole were to have another extreme.

Demonstrating that these constants could exist in other proportions wouldn't necessarily change the odds of the anthropic principal in a meaningful way. But it would demonstrate that these constants could change or could exist in different proportions.

 

[Job 33:6]

If it was one slot machine and one person and she pulled the lever one time then it must have been designed so that she'd win it. But it ain't like that.

Go back a few hundred million years and consider all the creatures on the planet. Every act they make is a pull of the lever on an infinity of evolutionary slot machines. They have to gamble every day. Some win enough to keep playing. And that's actually the aim of the game, because you don't stop playing and take home the winnings. It's compulsory to keep playing. To keep pulling that lever.

And some bust out and lose everything. We don't see them again. And some keep winning - a little more, a little less. But just enough to keep them in the game. And one of them hits the jackpot, so she (and her family) are way out in front of everyone else. Purely by chance. Someone has to be in front at each stage, and Homo sapien was the lucky winner.

Stick around long enough and we might lose everything and someone else will be the front runner.

Someone mentioned a similar thought above. But I'm referring more to a cosmological anthropic principal, not one specific to evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's analogous to walking into a casino and seeing someone wins a payout. You don't know how long she's been playing or how many other people are playing, and you don't know how easy it is to get a payout.

How many other people are playing, as in multiverse theory? Personally I'd go with a divine creation and purpose, certainly over multiverse theory.

 

[Bradskii]

Someone mentioned a similar thought above. But I'm referring more to a cosmological anthropic principal, not one specific to evolution.

Then we go back to the puddle analogy. I can't see how that can be avoided.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then we go back to the puddle analogy. I can't see how that can be avoided.

I think that harks response already addressed this in that even a puddle couldn't exist under conditions or altered constants.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that harks response already addressed this in that even a puddle couldn't exist under conditions or altered constants.

Here's a comment by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of time:

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had only been slightly difference, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. Of course there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars...Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of views for the numbers that would allow for the development of any form of intelligent life."

He goes in to discuss his personal counter ideas to the anthropic principal, though I'd say that it's more than just a question of a puddle filling a ditch, but rather it's a question of why there is a puddle and a ditch at all to begin with.

 

[Bradskii]

I think that harks response already addressed this in that even a puddle couldn't exist under conditions or altered constants.

Well, that's the point. If conditions are suitable for 'something' then 'something' will exist. If nothing can exist then there's nothing to discuss.

I simply don't get the question 'Why are conditions as they are?' For a Christian, it's a given. For me, it's another way of asking for an explanation as to why the conditions as they are. It's the same explantion as to why oxygen and hydrogen give us water. Were those physical laws designed or are they a brute fact?

In this case the answer is a given for both me and any deist. For a Christian? Well, there's a lot more to be unpacked and explained if you think it was God.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't think this really changes the circumstances. Unless it were the case that the universe in one extreme pole were to have one extreme value of a constant, whole the other pole were to have another extreme.

Demonstrating that these constants could exist in other proportions wouldn't necessarily change the odds of the anthropic principal in a meaningful way. But it would demonstrate that these constants could change or could exist in different proportions.

And.....?

 

[Job 33:6]

And.....?

Meaning that the probability of a one off by random chance is low or that it is an unlikely explanation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, that's the point. If conditions are suitable for 'something' then 'something' will exist.

Though not necessarily life. Let alone intelligent life.