Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Universe: Designed?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Universe: Designed?

    Most of the facts that are presented in this 6-minute clip have been know for some time now. I show it here only because it's a pretty neat presentation that brings many of these things together rather nicely.

    The astonishingly remarkable thing to me -- and it's been that way for decades -- is that despite these facts (and they are facts) there remains a species of folks known as Materialists/Humanists/Atheists and related subspecies that utterly refuse to give in.

    Then, as if that weren't enough, those same folks will yell at the top of their voice, "WE FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE TO WHERE IT LOGICALLY LEADS!!!" I mean, if that isn't the MOTHER of all ironies then I don't know what is.

    The "EVIDENCE" points in one and only one direction - anyone with at least two connected neurons can see this. Of course - and needless to say - that "direction" is one that those aforementioned folks want no part of. The rub is ideological/spiritual, not scientific. The "scientific" label is nothing more than a ruse.

    Thus, it comes as no surprise that those people abandon all reason and concoct things such as "multiverses" and "self-organization" (with ZERO evidence) in a desperate attempt to appear to the world as "sophisticated scientists" instead of as deluded, intellectually-dishonest buffoons.

    It's actually too bad for them : they don't realize that the harder they work on their concoctions - the more that they allow their vain imaginations to rule their "science" - the further they venture into Buffoon Land. Slowly, more and more people are realizing this.

    Errrr ... the above 'surely' doesn't apply to anyone at TWeb, right? Bwahahahaha

    Hope y'all had a nice Christmas.
    Watch out for 2015 - it'll be a lulu!

    Oops, almost forgot, here's that 6-minute video clip: http://player.vimeo.com/video/111335043

    Jorge

  • #2
    Gee, another evidence free Creationist propaganda piece with the same old argument from personal incredulity. At least this one has pretty colors. Probably kept mesmerized for hours.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Most of the facts that are presented in this 6-minute clip have been know for some time now. I show it here only because it's a pretty neat presentation that brings many of these things together rather nicely.

      The astonishingly remarkable thing to me -- and it's been that way for decades -- is that despite these facts (and they are facts) there remains a species of folks known as Materialists/Humanists/Atheists and related subspecies that utterly refuse to give in.

      Then, as if that weren't enough, those same folks will yell at the top of their voice, "WE FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE TO WHERE IT LOGICALLY LEADS!!!" I mean, if that isn't the MOTHER of all ironies then I don't know what is.

      The "EVIDENCE" points in one and only one direction - anyone with at least two connected neurons can see this. Of course - and needless to say - that "direction" is one that those aforementioned folks want no part of. The rub is ideological/spiritual, not scientific. The "scientific" label is nothing more than a ruse.

      Thus, it comes as no surprise that those people abandon all reason and concoct things such as "multiverses" and "self-organization" (with ZERO evidence) in a desperate attempt to appear to the world as "sophisticated scientists" instead of as deluded, intellectually-dishonest buffoons.

      It's actually too bad for them : they don't realize that the harder they work on their concoctions - the more that they allow their vain imaginations to rule their "science" - the further they venture into Buffoon Land. Slowly, more and more people are realizing this.

      Errrr ... the above 'surely' doesn't apply to anyone at TWeb, right? Bwahahahaha

      Hope y'all had a nice Christmas.
      Watch out for 2015 - it'll be a lulu!

      Oops, almost forgot, here's that 6-minute video clip: http://player.vimeo.com/video/111335043

      Jorge
      So why would God want to design a flawed universe like this, when he had already had trouble in heaven with the angels? And how did he design it, then make it? These important questions you never answer in a logical, evidence based manner, Jorge.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Oops, almost forgot, here's that 6-minute video clip: http://player.vimeo.com/video/111335043

        Jorge
        This is an excellent video! The science is solid. It briefly presents the fine-tuning of the universe. It does not push YEC; rather, it implicitly assumes an old universe and a Big Bang. I'm surprised that Jorge recommended it, but I recommend it as well.
        Last edited by Kbertsche; 12-30-2014, 12:54 AM.
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Oops, almost forgot, here's that 6-minute video clip: http://player.vimeo.com/video/111335043
          Anyone who falls for that pile of manure needs their head examined.

          Apart from the attempt to appear factual by riping-off the Hitchhiker's Guide, their arguments are completely bogus.

          Here's their first one:
          Gravity is determined by the gravitational constant. If this constant varied by one in 1060 parts, none of us would exist.
          So what's the problem? Simple. We don't know the value of the gravitational constant that accurately.

          One recent paper stated "
          We obtain the value G = 6.67191(99)  10−11 m3 kg−1 s[sup]−2[s/up] with a relative uncertainty of 150 parts per million"

          Feed that little fact into the 'argument', and it becomes
          The gravitational constant is somewhere between
          __0.000000000066704199
          and
          __0.000000000066734199.
          It might be, for example,
          __0.000000000066718776644820984623456213453739563222 01755298032186638214561.
          But if it was
          __0.000000000066718776644820984623456213453739563222 01755298032186638214562,
          the world wouldn't exist.


          No-one with any scientific background or who did the most trivial research into the subject would believe this video for a moment. But as Paul Simon wrote, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

          Roy
          Last edited by Roy; 12-30-2014, 08:30 AM. Reason: spacing
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

          Comment


          • #6
            "Design" by whom or what? And if the "design" is not anthropomorphic, how can we tell?

            K54

            Comment


            • #7
              They also give "the number of seconds that have ticked by since time began" as 1020. Unless my ability with a calculator is failing,* that doesn't work out to 6000 years, so I don't see why a YEC is promoting this rubbish. Nor does it work out to 14 billion years - that would be approximately 1017 seconds. Their time period is about 3 trillion years. So either they know something the rest of the world does not, or they can't cope with high-school arithmetic. And if they can't cope with high-school arithmetic, why should anyone think they understand the mathematics of astrophysics?

              Roy

              *Note for Jorge and other morons: this is not a get out clause, it's typical British understatement.
              Last edited by Roy; 12-30-2014, 08:52 AM.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

              Comment


              • #8
                Nice video. I have some issues though. The only constant we know exactly is the speed of light. And that is by definition as to its exact value. The gravitation constant to an accuracy of 10-60. I find that hard to possibly know. The current value is only known to about 6.67384 x 10-11. And not exactly.
                Last edited by 37818; 12-30-2014, 12:00 PM.
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Fine Tuning argument is even worse than a God of the Gaps argument. At least the God of the Gaps is usually formulated as "not A, therefore God." Fallacious, to be sure, but at least we are actually eliminating the other option in that scenario. The Fine Tuning argument is formulated as "possibly A, but A is improbable, therefore God."
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    The Fine Tuning argument is even worse than a God of the Gaps argument. At least the God of the Gaps is usually formulated as "not A, therefore God." Fallacious, to be sure, but at least we are actually eliminating the other option in that scenario. The Fine Tuning argument is formulated as "possibly A, but A is improbable, therefore God."
                    Did you notice that their reasons for rejecting a multiverse scenario apply equally well to their designer scenario?
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Did you notice that their reasons for rejecting a multiverse scenario apply equally well to their designer scenario?
                      Not to mention the fact that the cosmologists who are developing multiverse models will be the first to tell you that there is no empirical data which yet supports the model, and that it is speculation based upon predictions from other physical theories.

                      When was the last time a theist admitted that there is no empirical data to support the idea of divine Creation, when presenting the Fine Tuning argument?
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And the multiverse argument actually supports there being some kind of God, at least in one them. And given infinite past even now all of them.
                        . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          And the multiverse argument actually supports there being some kind of God, at least in one them. And given infinite past even now all of them.
                          How do you figure?
                          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            Anyone who falls for that pile of manure needs their head examined.

                            Apart from the attempt to appear factual by riping-off the Hitchhiker's Guide, their arguments are completely bogus.

                            Here's their first one:
                            Gravity is determined by the gravitational constant. If this constant varied by one in 1060 parts, none of us would exist.
                            So what's the problem? Simple. We don't know the value of the gravitational constant that accurately.

                            ...
                            Roy
                            We don't need to actually KNOW a value to one part in 10^60 in order to calculate that the SENSITIVITY of the value is one part in 10^60. You are, in essence, confusing accuracy and precision.

                            The more normal way to express this sensitivity is to say that the mass density of the early universe had to be fine-tuned to one part in 10^60. This is how Hugh Ross and others generally express it. But if the mass density were assumed to be fixed, then the gravitational constant would have to be fine-tuned to one part in 10^60, as the video says. In this, the video follows Robin Collins, who explains:

                            Source: Robin Collins


                            The Teleological Argument, p. 215
                            ... There is, however, a fine-tuning of gravity relative to other parameters. One of these is the fine-tuning of gravity relative to the density of mass-energy in the early universe and other factors determining the expansion rate of the Big Bang – such as the value of the Hubble constant and the value of the cosmological constant. Holding these other parameters constant, if the strength of gravity were smaller or larger by an estimated one part in 1060 of its current value, the universe would have either exploded too quickly for galaxies and stars to form, or collapsed back on itself too quickly for life to evolve.10

                            10. This latter fine-tuning of the strength of gravity is typically expressed as the claim that the density of matter at the Plank time (the time at which we have any confidence in the theory of Big Bang dynamics) must have been tuned to one part in 1060 of the so-called critical density (e.g. Davies 1982, p. 89). Since the critical density is inversely proportional to the strength of gravity (Davies 1982, p. 88, eqn. 4.15), the fine-tuning of the matter density can easily be shown to be equivalent to the aforementioned claim about the tuning of the strength of gravity. Of course, if one cites this fine-tuning of gravity, one cannot then treat the fine-tuning of the force of the Big Bang or matter density of the Big Bang as an independent fine-tuning. (See Section 5.1.1 for how to combine cases of fine-tuning.)

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here we go again. Imagine all the puddles waking to discover that, despite their wide varieties of shapes and sizes, every one of their containers is a precise fit. This CANNOT be coincidence. Therefore it must be design. What else could it be?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              32 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              11 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              4 responses
                              41 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              69 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X