Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

Lawrence Krauss does not explain quantum mechanics. We understand quantum mechanics better now such as quarks, pentaquarks and more extremely tiny particles.

There is no evidence for the "fine tuning theory". It isn't a scientific theory, as it has not been confirmed through repeated experimentation, observations, and verifiable evidence. It is merely a hypothesis.

Where did you get the idea that the scientific community supports fine tuning?

Cosmic fine tuning is evidence that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. If altered even by the tiniest amount, life would not be able to exist. Its specificity could not have happened by chance. There are many examples of things so finely tuned, so it is considered a theory.

 

[james bond]

You seem to be ignorant of the vast difference between a hypothesis/theory and a "scientific theory". Evolution is not just a theory, it is a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Uh huh. We were discussing something from nothing and that is not a scientific theory. What part of evolution are you referring to? Provide a few examples.

I think we agreed on no facts with TOE.

 

[james bond]

There isn't any "Fine Tuning Theory."

Sure there is. You have to think outside the evo box.

 

[Shad]

Cosmic fine tuning is evidence that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. If altered even by the tiniest amount, life would not be able to exist. Its specificity could not have happened by chance. There are many examples of things so finely tuned, so it is considered a theory.

Fine-tuning as an argument from God is moot. It shows ineffective design since life is has no been shown to be abundant in the universe. You have no other universe to test your assumptions either nor can you modify these constants to see if life could develop in another way. Also life is strictly defined as carbon based life. Life doesn't exist in many places even with your so-called fine-tuning argument. You are also assuming that the fine-tuning is for life rather than life adapts, Miracles also undermine the argument as this would be the suspension of said fine-tuning without any disastrous effect as claimed by proponents for fine-tuning=God. Also if fine-tuning is a necessary for life then arguing for God is required for this makes fine-tune not necessary in itself thus the God conclusion cripples the first premise of the argument.

 

[leibowde84]

Lawrence Krauss does not explain quantum mechanics. We understand quantum mechanics better now such as quarks, pentaquarks and more extremely tiny particles.


Cosmic fine tuning is evidence that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. If altered even by the tiniest amount, life would not be able to exist. Its specificity could not have happened by chance. There are many examples of things so finely tuned, so it is considered a theory.

You still have yet to provide any verifiable, demonstrable evidence for "cosmic fine tuning". Can you do that? And, I don't understand why you brought Krauss into this. In science, there are no authorities when it comes to people. So, his thoughts aren't relevant to this debate.

 

[leibowde84]

Uh huh. We were discussing something from nothing and that is not a scientific theory. What part of evolution are you referring to? Provide a few examples.

I think we agreed on no facts with TOE.

Something from nothing not only isn't claimed by the ToE, it is irrelevant to the subject of speciation. So, you are demonstrating your ignorance as to what the ToE actually claims. Did you not see the definition I provided? The ToE in no way speaks to the origin of life from non life or any claim of something from nothing. There are no scientific theories that speak to the cause of the big bang or "something from nothing". Many creationists, ignorant of what a "scientific theory" actually is, try to use examples of mere hypotheses, not supported by repeated experimentation and observation, which there are many of, but they aren't scientific theories, and, thus are irrelevant to any consensus in science.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure there is. You have to think outside the evo box.

So, it'd just a hypothesis, not a scientific theory, right? I beg you to look up the well known tern "scientific theory" so you understand the difference between mere "theories".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Atheism of the gaps" doesn't make sense. Do you even know what an "X of the gaps" argument is? It's where X is put forth as an explanatory mechanism for some currently unsolved problem because competing mechanisms are perceived as having insufficient ability to solve the problem. It's generally phrased something like, "You can't explain how phenomenon Y happened with existing theories, therefore X is the right explanation". Atheism can't be put in the X because it isn't an explanatory mechanism: it's stance of belief/disbelief. Just try it: "You can't explain how life came into being with existing theories, therefore a lack of belief in God is the right explanation". See? Nonsense.

we can't explain how life came into being with any past or existing atheist theories, so I'm skeptical of atheism. As an explanation it has constantly retreated into the shadows where science has not yet shone, and increasingly exists where it inherently, conveniently cannot investigate at all- panspermia- multiverses etc.

 

[Parsimony]

we can't explain how life came into being with any past or existing atheist theories, so I'm skeptical of atheism. As an explanation it has constantly retreated into the shadows where science has not yet shone, and increasingly exists where it inherently, conveniently cannot investigate at all- panspermia- multiverses etc.

There are no "atheist theories" of how life began. If something is an "atheist theory" just because it doesn't mention God, then that would make quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, atomic theory and germ theory all "atheist theories" too. Are they? No, they aren't. They don't deny the possibility of a deity. They are silent on it. Just as abiogenesis, panspermia and multiverses are silent about it. None of those things deny God.

 

[viole]

There are no "atheist theories" of how life began. If something is an "atheist theory" just because it doesn't mention God, then that would make quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, atomic theory and germ theory all "atheist theories" too. Are they? No, they aren't. They don't deny the possibility of a deity. They are silent on it. Just as abiogenesis, panspermia and multiverses are silent about it. None of those things deny God.

Very true. They just make Him superflous.

And since we like parsimony, we should not add hypotheses beyond need. Should we?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are no "atheist theories" of how life began. If something is an "atheist theory" just because it doesn't mention God, then that would make quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, atomic theory and germ theory all "atheist theories" too. Are they? No, they aren't. They don't deny the possibility of a deity. They are silent on it. Just as abiogenesis, panspermia and multiverses are silent about it. None of those things deny God.

Atheist theories are theories proposed by self professed atheists with overt atheist implications, and explicitly cited by them and others as specifically supporting atheist beliefs.

Atheist Fred Hoyle proposed steady state explicitly to counter the 'religious pseudoscience' of a specific creation event like the Big Bang
Atheist Stephen Hawking likewise proposed the Big Crunch and posited that it 'made God redundant'
Atheist Richard Dawkins, the world's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'

 

[james bond]

Fine-tuning as an argument from God is moot. It shows ineffective design since life is has no been shown to be abundant in the universe. You have no other universe to test your assumptions either nor can you modify these constants to see if life could develop in another way. Also life is strictly defined as carbon based life. Life doesn't exist in many places even with your so-called fine-tuning argument. You are also assuming that the fine-tuning is for life rather than life adapts, Miracles also undermine the argument as this would be the suspension of said fine-tuning without any disastrous effect as claimed by proponents for fine-tuning=God. Also if fine-tuning is a necessary for life then arguing for God is required for this makes fine-tune not necessary in itself thus the God conclusion cripples the first premise of the argument.

It seems you do not understand scientific fine tuning. AND WHAT??? What do you mean "Fine-tuning as an argument from God?" And life has not (?) been shown to be abundant in the universe. It sounds like you're confusing Anthropic Principle with fine tuning. What assumptions am I supposed to test? I didn't continue because what are you talking about?

 

[james bond]

You still have yet to provide any verifiable, demonstrable evidence for "cosmic fine tuning". Can you do that? And, I don't understand why you brought Krauss into this. In science, there are no authorities when it comes to people. So, his thoughts aren't relevant to this debate.

My bad. Krauss was leftover from something else. Please disregard.

Sure, I can provide evidence for cosmic fine tuning, but much of is technical due to it involving very minute numbers which can produce a huge difference and involving complexity.

"The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the Big Bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all."

http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html

 

[james bond]

Something from nothing not only isn't claimed by the ToE, it is irrelevant to the subject of speciation. So, you are demonstrating your ignorance as to what the ToE actually claims. Did you not see the definition I provided? The ToE in no way speaks to the origin of life from non life or any claim of something from nothing. There are no scientific theories that speak to the cause of the big bang or "something from nothing". Many creationists, ignorant of what a "scientific theory" actually is, try to use examples of mere hypotheses, not supported by repeated experimentation and observation, which there are many of, but they aren't scientific theories, and, thus are irrelevant to any consensus in science.

There's miscommunication. How about we start from what you mean by ToE? Which post are you referring to?

And as I stated earlier, I'm using the evolution.berkeley.edu website for evolution so don't know what ignorance by creationists you are referring to. Perhaps it's your ignorance.

 

[james bond]

So, it'd just a hypothesis, not a scientific theory, right? I beg you to look up the well known tern "scientific theory" so you understand the difference between mere "theories".

I'll be glad to answer, but let me reply to the person whom I was replying to so as to not have too many duplicate posts.

 

[leibowde84]

My bad. Krauss was leftover from something else. Please disregard.

Sure, I can provide evidence for cosmic fine tuning, but much of is technical due to it involving very minute numbers which can produce a huge difference and involving complexity.

"The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the Big Bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all."

http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html

Aside from the absurdity of you citing a website such as that, which is in no way scientific (don't allow the evidence to guide them but, instead, start with the premise that scripture is accurate), it provides no actual evidence. It is nothing but speculation. Why would you think that the mere fact that slight changes in earth's conditions would preclude life, as we know it on this specific planet, would support the argument of fine tuning. Being impressed with the complexity of the cosmos in no way gets you closer to there necessarily being an intelligent design. You have to first prove the existence of the designer before any theories based on that designers existence can be validated.

 

[leibowde84]

There's miscommunication. How about we start from what you mean by ToE? Which post are you referring to?

And as I stated earlier, I'm using the evolution.berkeley.edu website for evolution so don't know what ignorance by creationists you are referring to. Perhaps it's your ignorance.

You haven't provided a definition for the ToE. I have. Can you provide your definition? Not just the link, but the definition itself. I am confused at where you are deriving your definition, as there is nothing about evolution extending beyond speciation in it.

 

[leibowde84]

There's miscommunication. How about we start from what you mean by ToE? Which post are you referring to?

And as I stated earlier, I'm using the evolution.berkeley.edu website for evolution so don't know what ignorance by creationists you are referring to. Perhaps it's your ignorance.

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the planet earth.

Nothing about the origin of life.

 

[james bond]

Aside from the absurdity of you citing a website such as that, which is in no way scientific (don't allow the evidence to guide them but, instead, start with the premise that scripture is accurate), it provides no actual evidence. It is nothing but speculation. Why would you think that the mere fact that slight changes in earth's conditions would preclude life, as we know it on this specific planet, would support the argument of fine tuning. Being impressed with the complexity of the cosmos in no way gets you closer to there necessarily being an intelligent design. You have to first prove the existence of the designer before any theories based on that designers existence can be validated.

Too much ignorance here. If you want to call Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking absurd, then that's fine with me

. Go read the liberal wikipedia on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe . It lists four very good sources [1-4] on top.

 

[james bond]

You haven't provided a definition for the ToE. I have. Can you provide your definition? Not just the link, but the definition itself. I am confused at where you are deriving your definition, as there is nothing about evolution extending beyond speciation in it.

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the planet earth.

Nothing about the origin of life.

You just defined evolution and not ToE as stated.

More to evolution than just your dictionary definition under this RF topic of Creationism vs Evolution. As stated before, this is what is being taught in schools and why Creationists want equal time. That's why the website is trying create a formal teaching of evolution called Evolution 101. It includes the whole ball of wax including evolutionary thought and origins of life. Creation science delves into it, too. Creationists want to create Creation 101.

If you want to teach Larmarck and Darwin, there were people before them such as Malthus and Lyell who influenced their thinking. It's all relative.