Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Yiffox

K'...finally did it, imma creationist

by
Why?  SCIENCE!

I have an open mind, which is why I refrained from declaring this till now.  I suspected it, but yeah, no doubt now.  Thinking about adding a website to discuss this further, but I have no doubts now.

Why?  math and SCIENCE!  holds test tube figuratively...

so let's just do the basic universe stuff.

The Cosmoligical Constant.  This is the rate of Expansion of the universe.  We live in an extremely flat universe.  EXTREMELY...ie the current rate is not changing (odd since other things say we are) (note ^ means powers, ie 5^2 = 25 = 5x5)

It is predicted to be around 10^4 power long number.  In actuality it is 10^121 long.  To put that number in perspective, there are 10^88 particles estimated to be in the universe.  To reach that number means you won the lottery 10^113 times.

If this constant was changed by ONE digit, the universe would eventually fly apart or collapse into a black hole.  If the universe was 13 billion years old, that ONE digit would mean galaxies would never have formed.

Add just another of the 30 some constants, the strong nuclear force, another extremely constrained constant...if it was 2% different, fusion in stars would cease almost immediately.  2% stronger means all hydrogen fuses into an unusable form.

So we live in a finely tuned universe just for mere existence.  EXTEMELY fine tuned.  not just oh the earth is a certain distance from the sun....srsly why dont we hear this obviously created universe by scientists?

So what do so called scientists say?  their ONLY explanation to preserve a non-created universe is to make believe their are infinite universes and we just happen to be the lucky one.  Perhaps you heard of this theory, the multiverse theory.  Problems?  well no evidence, no evidence, it isn't science.  Its propaganda.  Science REQUIRES evidence.  Proof.  But even ignoring no proof.  It requires one to believe that all these other infinite universes are almost entirely just expanding gas, black holes, or dead dark universes, with only an extremely small number of universes can produce working stars and galaxies, just based on 2 constants, ignoring the rest...for comparison, this is as if one cell in your body produced a workable universe in 10^110 humans.  again more particles in the entire universe.

so yeah...sorry, its just math, we live in a designed universe, to deny that is to deny math and evidence.

Viewed: 92 times
Added: 5 years, 5 months ago
 
Tai
Tai
5 years, 5 months ago
But cobra the universe is currently flying apart as we speak, and so are the space between electrons and the center of an atom. as time passes they will fly apart so far that life will be impossible. eventually the bonds of atoms will die as well and everything will just be particles and then string. this is called the heat death.

and there are other planets discovered the right distance from thier sun too, there arent many of them but there are some.


but here's how i see things
I'm here now alive, i don't give a shit about why and thinking about it will do me good how? none at all? alrighty then lets have fun.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
hehe, you dont understand what is meant by being flat is that the expansion is flat.  The same expansion now as when the universe began.    This of course ignores the so called expansionary period required for the big bang theory to again allow the universe to appear as it does now, but that is again conjecture without evidence and some might say outside the laws of physics ( it had to occur faster than the speed of light)

but were talking science here, not fuck it, lets fuck mentality XD  which I can appreciate XD  bends u over and checks u out
Tai
Tai
5 years, 5 months ago
then its simple really, the universe's exansion is slowing down gradually.

but srsly i dont give a fuck about science unless its in an rp and then the dm hates me
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
always insert an explodable tampon up the DM's ass, cobra rule!
Tai
Tai
5 years, 5 months ago
we have a running gag with a clockwork dragon dildo
Scorpiious
5 years, 5 months ago
Co- incidence. And usually the simplest answer is correct. Why look the gift horse in the mouth? Why not continue to seek proof? Expand science, our minds, knowledge? Why, not?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
the sun rising is coincidence.  rising 10 to the 109th power more than the 5 billion yrs supposedly the earth has been around?  um fact  that is the coincidence we are talking about, and one that cant be denied.  so really do you doubt the sun will rise tomorrow or something 10^109th more probable
Scorpiious
5 years, 5 months ago
No, I have no reason to doubt it. But the very nature of science is to question. In what you present there are knowns and unknowns. It would be.. Foolish, blind, to just sit down with the facts we have and say "good enough." because even as much as we know, we will never know everything.
phyrexfirestorm
5 years, 5 months ago
Think about this: perhaps we are actually sub-atomic particles of a much larger living being. Or , perhaps what WE percieve as galaxies are actually the atoms of an even larger molecule, which, in turn, is part of an even greater whole which may not even be alive. We may even be considered a bacteria that lives inside the cell of another being, for all we know. Even moreso, what if each galaxy is actually a proton/neutron/electron of an atom? Perhaps each galaxy is merely a molecule, making up a fluid like that of water, and we are all within an ocean of another planet!

In truth, since we cannot even determine how a human brain actually functions, how can we really be certain of anything beyond our own earthly realm? From a logical standpoint, we dont actually have a clue WHAT is happening outside of our own planet if we cannot determine how ourselves actually function on every level. It seems to be more of an educated guess, rather than fact. Then again, this is just my opinion on the matter, and i claim to be neither correct nor incorrect in this particular statement. It's just something for people to think about, and get their minds workin.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
so what your saying is we're all in those marbles at the end of men in black movie hehe
phyrexfirestorm
5 years, 5 months ago
kinda, yes. it could be that, or it could be quite the opposite, where WE are the largest part, and there actually exist a sub-atomic multiverse. either way, it does get your brain thinking, because we can't truly prove or disprove any of it, lol.
Terl
5 years, 5 months ago
What I like, is that scientists demand to be the definers of the universe, as in it must work the way they tell it to, then go on about experiments where they look in from outside and dont affect things, then they do experiments in quantum mechanics that shows that not only are All thins interrelated, but affect each other, no matter how far apart in time they are.

The reason we are in teh universe we are in, is because every time we look into teh skies, our observatins of the photons from teh beginning of time, set the behaviour of the beginning of time so that the universe will evolve to the point that we will be here to observe it. If it didnt, then there would be a paradox, which is a higher energy function, so decays to a non paradox low energy solution.

My favourite thing is that given the simplest Universal Turing Machine is the 5,3, then Every Single sub quantum particle all quarks, gluons, neutrinos, etc are UTMs, and so capable of behaving as a full blown computer, and so therefore an intelligent processing element. Im still waiting for Conway to show that addind a foam of UTM to Life, gives intelligent results.

Dont forget also, Our quantum state is also defined by those wh are observing us from far in the future also, or by our spy satelites in orbit at present.

I still like that model used on The Open University back in the 1970s. It was a hyperbolic definition of the Infinite Universe over Infinite time. It consisted of two spheres, one inside the other, and by back propagating hyperbolic world lines from the infinite end, to the outer constraqinign sphere at the present, the intersection with the universe sphere formed a Flat space time.

Couple that with the mathematical proof that an infinitely long line is a circle, and I still whis they had placed two Universe Spheres inside the Hyperbolic sphere, then said. And fr those of you who are folowing so far, These two smaller spheres, which are each infinite in size, are actually one and the same sphere, forming a torus.

The great thing about using this method, is that both Creationists and Evolutioninsts, Inflation And Steady State, are all equally correct, just feeling up the Elephant in  different ways.

Dont forget, if you decide to be a Creationist, the Universe is Your Creation, and so therefore Everything Is Your Fault. 8)
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
eh I think quantum mechanics is a lot of malarchy...  the cat is not both dead and alive just because we can't see it, we just can't see it.  Similarly, because we couldnt see the interaction of 2 particles, when we look at one far away and it did not magically resolve itself because we looked, we just couldnt see the former interaction, the 2 particles are not connected over distance.  While this "works" through math and probability, it does not define what is actually going on.  Likewise observation does not resolve things into being and we are not creating reality.  This is just utter nonsense.
Textbooks
5 years, 5 months ago
OH MY GOD YOU'RE A CREATIONIST!
....Just kidding. I honestly don't care what someone's belifs are Atheist or Catholic
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well I should have said theist, as I'm talking specifically of the universe and not humans per say
Textbooks
5 years, 5 months ago
I'm not really saying you're an atheist or catholic. I'm just saying you seem like a cool guy with a good head on your shoulders. That's enough for me :)
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
i'm supercool man, puts sum ice on my ass , see! hehehe
ScarletChaos
5 years, 5 months ago
Ironic how you say there's no evidence for something and therefor you don't believe it, yet you believe there's a creator even though there's no evidence supporting that.

Which also brings up the question. If everything had to be created, then what created the creator? Apparently something just couldn't have always existed.

I think not being able to explain something should encourage more study and research as opposed to giving up and just saying "I don't understand it, so God did it"
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
You are totally misunderstanding me.  There CAN not be evidence for other universes because they're in other universes, if things could traverse between universes, they would be part of the same universe.  So no evidence is possible, not that it hasn't been found yet.  Also there is evidence of creation, as I went on at length about that the universe is extremely fine tuned, not just for life, but to exist at all.  Just like if you found buildings in a place, one would assume someone built that, such extreme fine tuning of the universe is evidence for design.

And you are wrong, something just could always exist.  This is yet another evidence for design/a creator.  The modern definition of time as dimension answers your question.  The creator created time as well as space.  Therefore time did not exist before the creation.  He (as it can be argued that a persona is necessary for creation) is literally eternal, and requires no beginning, as beginning implies time.  He would literally exist in a neverending, neverbeginning cosmic moment.  What's interesting is this state also demands several other listed attributes of god that, like your question, philosophers have struggled with for centuries.

He must be unchanging.  Moreover, the creation was not an event in the past, but the entire universe must have been created from beginning to end in this eternal moment.  From our perspective, this creation goes on moment by moment (planck second by planck second)...thus he must be omnipotent as he is creating everything.  He must be omnipresent, as anywhere he is not, would not exist.  He must be omniscient, because well, he's creating everything.  Do you find it odd that a modern definition of time answers all these mind boggling questions that people had with these attributes since they were stated?

Lastly, this is not a god of gaps argument.  This is saying I do understand the evidence, and the only explanation is god did it.  So let me ask you, if god did do it, is there any evidence that would be suffice to prove it to you or would you dismiss it?

PS - love your icon too XD
Kusaragi
5 years, 5 months ago
I can respect your decision to believe in something bigger then yourself, but the way this argument is stated simply brings up more questions to me. I can understand that you think that the Expansion of the Universe rate is constant, that if one DIGIT is removed the whole thing would crumble in on itself. But consider it's BILLIONS of numbers stacked on top of each other. If you changed a few hundred thousand of them the force exerted would change little at a time, over the billions of years the universe has been active, that change has a huge effect on the rate of expansion. it's not a sudden crushing change, it's subtle, gradual, over time.

That said, the vantage point we're studying that decay or that Expansion is biased, we're INSIDE the system of planets, we're moving away from the 'center' of the universe as our planet circles the sun, and as the sun orbits the center of our galaxy, and as our galaxy orbits other galaxies. Very little information that WE get can be confirmed since all the data we get on our little rock is several thousand years old.  All we can REALLY do is assume what we hope to be true.

That's just my two cents on the matter.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well they can measure this stuff very precisely and the universe has been found to be "flat" ie the expansion rate does not change...it is the fact it is such a tiny number that does not enable change.  Even changing the 10^121 decimal means a tenfold increase in power.  One has to remember this number was predicted to be 4 digits long.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
The "fine tuning" argument is well and truly debunked.  Many better minds than mine have knocked down that bit of pseudo-science apologetics.  

In short (very short):  The universe isn't fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe.  That's the reason that desert species are a lot different to arctic species, and so on.  

Also, if the universe were fine tuned for life, then why can life exist in only a negligible pittance of it?  

Apart from the logic, there's also the science.  For example the four forces, being gravitation, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear...and yet if you took the weak nuclear force out of the equation entirely, life as it exists now would still be possible.  If gravity exerted more force (given the masses involved) multi-celular life would evolve accordingly, not become magically impossible, and single celled organisms wouldn't even need to change.

The fine-tuning argument isn't science, it is a theological one attempting to masquerade as science.  Much like others such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  If you're interested (and open minded) in all the other debunking of the fine tuning argument, do please look them up, what I gave there wasn't even a summary of all the hard-science responses or the better logic.

Cobra.  You're allowed to believe what you like.  If you want to be a creationist, the only person you need to convince is yourself.  And who says you have to care what science says at all?  Your selection criteria are your choice too.  It seems to me you're not happy with the compromise you're trying to make between theology and (real) science.  This is forcing you to pick and choose what sources to be open minded to, and close your mind to contradictory information.  Apart from obviously being frustrating and unsatisfying to you (hence your post), that's not really being 'open minded' either.

By the way, I am not bugged by your beliefs or choices, but rather deceitful apologetics dressed as pseudoscience like the Fine Tuning Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, First Cause Argument and so on...just really bug me.  Wether you want a theological answer, or a scientific answer, you should go for the real version of either.  The trickery arguments...well...I have a low tolerance for such things.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Eh I do not think it has been debunked at all.  For one, I am not saying the universe was designed for life, I was saying it was fine tuned to exist at all.  
-So how has it been debunked that changing one digit of the 122 in the cosmological constant would not allow galaxies or even stars to form?
-How has it been debunked that by raising the strong nuclear force by 2% means fusion in stars would cease.  1% lower and no carbon could form.  5% lower and you only have a universe of hydrogen.
-If the fine structure constant changes by 4% up or down then oxygen and carbon could never been produced.
-If the mass of a neutron was more than .007% times more than a proton (remembering that 99% of the mass of these particles come from the gluon field and kinetic energy of their quarks) then nuclear reaction would shut down, requiring energy to occur, rather than releasing energy, hence stars would collapse under gravity.
-If gravity were to make a small change in its relative strength to the other forces, then stars would have dramatically shorter lives or matter may not clump together to form anything.
- One would think that the weak nuclear force would not have much of effect, but it causes the process of neutrons decaying into protons, which is required for formation of deuterium, which starts the fusion process....now some have "fixed" amount of deuterium in an early universe to not require this, but fixing it what this whole thing is talking about.  Moreover, weak nuclear force is directly responsible for the neutrino creation that causes stellar supernova...this means, the weak force determines much of the creation of both iron and oxygen in the universe.  (which are the most abundant elements in rocky planets)  Not only that, no or weaker radioactivity?  No heating of the Earth's core, no plate techtonics now, no magnetic field and gradual loss of our atmosphere, and no water...stronger and well....no crust.

Now the only argument against this fine tuning is that these constants can change dynamically with precise to keep the universe in balance (somehow, but that too would seem to require a regulating influence, ie the fine structure constant could change with the strength of the strong nuclear force in tandem to keep the possibility of higher elements occuring, yet this seems far fetched, as there is little evidence that constants change at all.  One also should be reminded that this theory has a true prediction (one of the hallmarks of good science) in the relative strength of the cosmological constant (over the four digit number regular science predicted, what has been called the worst prediction in the history of science)

and I have looked up the arguments against it and they do not answer why THIS universe is fine tuned to exist (not necessarily for life, but stars, elements over hydrogren, galaxies, etc. - although life would not be possible without them, any kind of life)

also comparing a need for a prime mover to finding fundamental observations of universal constants that can not be altered slightly without destroying the universe as we know it....kinda different there?  One *IS* theology and the other is scientific theory based on facts.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Cobra, look at your core arguments.  1) the universe works, 2) I declare it couldn't work if it were any different, 3) therefore it was designed and creationism is true.  

Everything you just raised is trying to support that chain.  But first off the chain is faulty, and secondly most of those points are long since addressed.  

For starters there are people who would debate that #1 is false since it looks like the universe is going to end eventually.  

The second point is totally false, it's not like a slight tweak of the dial would stop the universe existing, or even existing in its current form.  (Not to mention there is no creator's control panel to be adjusted, as other fine tuning advocates imply or claim).  If you altered the properties of the universe, it would have merely ordered itself differently.  And not to mention that most of these 'constants that if slightly altered would render the universe impossible' ideas don't work or are totally made up.  

And leaping from the second to the third is just special pleading.  EVEN IF it turned out that the universe was in the one perfect configuration to exist and/or for life to exist...so what?  Do you know what the odds of living things contemplating the structure of the universe in a universe that exists and allows life are?  Exactly 100%!  If the universe made life impossible, we couldn't be discussing it, and if the universe couldn't exist we wouldn't be discussing it.  There is nothing profound about the universe existing whatsoever.  No more than being awed that humans who need air happen to live on a planet with air...HALLELUJAH!

So yes Cobra, the universe exists.  It doesn't follow that your specific religious beliefs are now scientific fact.  If anything trying to prop up your beliefs with science indicates a frailty in your own faith.

There's nothing wrong with being a creationist, but, at least do it right.  Believe because it's what you think is true.  Not huxterism like the fine tuning argument.  
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
You totally misrepresent what I am saying. so let's be blunt.  
1.  the universe is exists as it does and is not a starless, galaxyless, and void of any element except hydrogen (maybe unusable helium)
2. if minute changes were made of several constants defining this universe, then it would be a starless, galaxyless, elementless universe.  ie changing 1 digit in a 122 digit long string of numerals, AND not precisely coordinating the electrical force to be within 2 degrees of the electrical force (just imagine all the alternatives there!) then wham no stars, no light, no fusion, darkness.  and the list goes on.

so to your objections...you claim the universe does not work because it may end.  I assume you mean the actual prediction of the anthropic theory that entropy death will occur?  again found to be true, some billions of years in the future...and this again if there is no mechanism we dont know of to prevent it  (its a big wide universe out there ya know)

2nd point, totally agreed.  if the universe was slightly different, we'd have a dark dead universe.  But that's kind of the point no?  no stars, no fusion, no light, not even a lot of elements.  Kinda the point I was making.  

so lastly...we are not talking about religious beliefs.  We are talking about scientific facts.  To protray the fine tuning of the universe as religion is ridiculous.  AND AGAIN IT IS INCREDIBLE fine tuning.  I had no clue it was this precise.  See post above how many times you would have to win the lottery for this universe to occur.  and yes i can see your point about probability.

the chance of actual events is 100% no matter how probable, but this assumes there are other probabilities.  ie - it is 100% probable I am drinking vodka right now.  Even though the chance of me drinking vodka over eternity is rather low, since I wasn't alive for most of those days.  But we are talking about fundamental properties of the universe, not probability.  With REAL science and real evidence, things that can be tested, there is only one universe and can only be one universe according to real science that requires evidence.  So the evidence is that if the existing and measured  properties of the universe were altered extremely minutely, there would be no stars and everything would be dark.

PERIOD.

that is the evidence.  The only conclusion scientifically is that the universe is engineered to produce stars and light and elements.  <--please show me how this is a wrong conclusion based on evidence.  Tell it to me like I wuz a child.  XD  It would definately meet the burden of proof in any court.  It is beyond reasonable doubt.

This is why atheists had to invent a multiverse to counter this argument.  My retort is that 1. it has no proof and therefore not science, and 2. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999......% to the 130th digit of those universes are still dark, dead, starless, elementless.  Seems an awful lot to prove there was no designer. no?

so just asking you, how many times do you come upon a building and claim, oh it just happened. XD
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Sorry if I seem short-tempered about this (because I am), but I have debated this to death with others before.  And each time the people trotting out the Fine Tuning Argument have said it wasn't debunked, and/or their subtle variant of it needs a fresh hearing.  

And then I realised...why am I telling you how to formulate your beliefs here in your journal?  

Anyway this is something I am done with but which you're enjoying.  So...yeah, enjoy.  ^_^
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well you seem to think its debunked without pointing where it was debunked, everything I've seen shows those "debunkings" have been answered.  

And I an not talking about being friendly to life.  The universe is incredibly hostile to life.  As far as we know, only earth can support it.  I am speaking how the universe appears to be rather fine tuned to have stars and galaxies exist at all and last more for any period of time.  This should be obvious.  It's been acknowledged widely.  There's even a quote by Hawkings saying as much.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
You're the one with questions and as you've expressed, you have your version of the Fine Tuning Argument.  So I can't dredge up a better list of google hits for your questions than you can.  Nor what you'll be open minded to and which you'll just dismiss.  What are you looking for?  Do you even wish to look, or would you prefer not to look incase you find things you don't wish to?

That's unless you really think I can find answers to your questions better than you can, in which case i'll try for you.  But otherwise I'd recommend you start (but not stop) with the experts on YouTube who have tackled the topic.  That way you can get a back-and-forth discussion (in many cases) and move from there.

Also, as you've said, you think there are abundant cosmological constants that must have been set exactly right...why not investigate the ones YOU find the most compelling?  Remember, this is a topic which interests you and which I find intensely irritating with endless repetition.  

For my part, it's like the last time I wrangled with a creationist (on the topic of evolution) and he kept demanding (among other things) I give the proof for evolution and I kept rattling off the long list, he asked "but what can the public see" and I couldn't convince him that the contents of natural history museums a) existed and b) were open to the public.  Talking to you is eerily similar to that experience; despite all the available material that's out there, if you won't do a quick search then how am I supposed to force-feed you the hits from the search?  

(He also kept saying things like "why not teach the controversy" and the answer was "there is none, scientists in the field are not in controversy", and then things like "evolution can't be demonstrated in the laboratory" and I listed experiments where is was, and he said "mutations can't be beneficial" and I listed experiments where beneficial mutations had developed and been demonstrated under laboratory conditions.  The Lenski experiment springs to mind.  But that was him and others, not you.  Also that was evolution not cosmology, and to my knowledge no-one has created a new universe under laboratory conditions.)

Not to mention that if you're asking me to do a search and show you why the cosmological-apologetics arguments are not convincing to me, that would require me to condense elements from my education including studying physics (first year, advanced) at university which weren't pulled off the internet and weren't quick.  
Kolo
5 years, 5 months ago
This isn't Creationism my friend. You're saying the universe was created by a higher being and not by chance. Creationism (as far as I know) is the belief that everything was created as is by some higher being some time in the past. From the title I thought you were a fucking crazy nutjob, but in reality you're just a normal thinking person.

But you don't understand the Infinite universes thing. Here, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywn2Lz5zmYg

Also, why is it so hard to accept that we are just here by chance? There is no evidence to say the universe is designed. There is logical evidence that it is not. Why do you have to ruin the beauty of existence by not accepting that nature is random and that if one tiny seemingly insignificant thing was different we wouldn't be here? That is the basics of the Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect.

We're just lucky that our universe is a 3 (3-1-6) dimensional entity and that Terra formed in the goldilocks zone of a non-violent yellow dwarf. It might be hard to accept that there is no reason that we exist, but that is the beauty of the whole fucking situation.


If this mess of text didn't make sense to you, my opinion is basically the same as Stumpycoon's.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
hehe yes, i corrected myself in the comments, that more precisely I am a theist.  Ugh a video...I understand the argument of a multiverse, it started in science fiction awhile ago.

Question is did YOU watch that video.  It basically says what I did, that they are inventing a whole lot of other universes to argue against a fine tuned universe, it also states there is no proof of these universes, and by nature we can't observe or prove they exist, hence this isn't science, but an argument against the ACTUAL evidence and science that does exist solely to support an ideology, ie -atheism.  When you resort to creating infinite numbers of universes, which if factors are random, probability says that about one in 10^125 will even form stars or elements higher than helium, so a mass of dead empty dark universes, you are really reaching there.

Why do I not believe in chance?  Well this journal basically says why.  I don't play the lottery, because mathematically it is improbable to win and I am wasting my money.  To believe this universe is chance is to say you won the lottery, not once, but 10^113 times  that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times

you'd be awful rich  XD
Kolo
5 years, 5 months ago
First of all - Leave religion out of science. And Atheism counts as religion. Science is there for the benefit of humanity, not the benefit of Atheists. Religion has nothing to do with science. And an intelligently designed universe does not need a concept of god, because theoretically we could create universes with the technology we have, and that falls into that category.

The video didn't say the same thing you did, it didn't say anything about some sort of intelligent design.

That lottery analogy is male bovine excrement.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Eh you do know that science has its origin in religion right?  Newton and Descartes (and the Arabs before them) purposefully believed that there were universal natural laws that god put into place and man could discover these universal laws.  (PS- all evidence says they exist and are as universal as far as we have evidence for.)

So leaving religion out of science means science never began.  Now atheistic forces hijacked science before the french revolution with the stated purpose of overthrowing Catholic dogma in order to overthrow the state (one supported the other back then).  They invented evolution (the first version in the 1780's), before it was proven wrong, as well as the ancestors of different theories of cosmic origin, many of which have no to little evidence, no experiments to prove them, and amount to little more than propaganda.

Another cool religion and science twist is the role Eastern religions played in laying out the theories of quantum mechanics.  (no wonder many have made the claim that quantum mechanics prove eastern religions - well that's because eastern religions helped form the theories of quantum mechanics, not the other way around.

so really the whole science and religion idea not mixing ignores history and is really just an atheistic propaganda.

As to your video, I did not claim it said anything about design, I said it acknowledged that there was no evidence for other universes (ie not science) and that the whole idea was to provide an alternative for actual evidence of design.  So science and evidence or myths with no evidence...that's the choice here.

Why is the analogy wrong, the number defining the universe is that long and that precise.  If off by one not winning out of all those times, then no stars.  Simple as that.  But I'll be generous, you can lose twice in all those times, many many quintillions more times than there are particles in the universe.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Well see there's the rub...I heard of the anthropic argument before years ago and dismissed it, because many of their points were rather silly....such as the earth being just the right temperature range, etc.  Well just on probability factors of the 8 planets we know a lot about, thats a 1:8 chance, if we include only rocky planets 1:4 chance.

My new information, which I have researched, is that stars can't form with just small changes in percentage of magnitude of some constants.  One in particular is impossible not to be fine tuned, physically impossible.  There are arguments that make some of this irrelevent, like if the universe did not evolve or come from the big bang, then we're down to less than a 1% chance or so non-design (ie no stars, no light).  Even then seems pretty far fetched not to believe in a designed universe

And would love to debate against common descent with you, as I would totally win that argument if you were opened minded.  For one, evolution the process is real and undeniable.  The theory of evolution (common descent) is a total sham with more proof against it.  Much of the original proof has vanished or been proven wrong.  

1.  Take for example that almost all phylum appear suddenly in the cambrian period (the first) period of fossils (totally marine and almost all bottom feeders - the first one would expect to get easily buried and fossilized) with almost no fossils before )except critters tracks and burrows that burrowed INTO the seabed.  So sudden appearance of almost all major plans of life as evidence rather than gradual changes and development over time.  FACT
2. Species remaining apparently static over supposedly millions of years.  FACT.  evolutionists claim, oh these aren't the same species around today, but that is hogwash, they are all within the normal diversity of a species and often within a very limited range (if a poodle and a great dane fossil were dug up, they would be considered different species entirely, no doubt as example, not almost the same)

so natural history museums really show no more than these 2 things.  The IMAGINE a lot, but no actual evidence for it.  They evidence clearly shows quick beginning and long periods of stagnation.

and he was right about experiments, but I think your terminology was different.  The process of evolution can be shown by experiments, not common descent.  There are NO experiments to show a past historical process and never can be.  The argument can easily be made that common descent (and all origin theories are myths and not science for this very reason --  whats funny is the guy who came up with the peer review qualification for science a few decades ago(?- yes its new, and we could discuss how that's more about keeping orthodoxy in science rather than being science, but another tale) considered common descent by his qualification not a science either, till he was forced by mainstream science to recant.  --  funny how myths, orthodoxy, faith, and recanting can so easily be applied to modern science (snicker)

Looking up the Lenski experiment...it seems a typical evolution process experiment, mutations occur and populations can change.  It has nothing to do with common descent.  Moreover, it may have implications in design.  It estimates over 50,000 generations (that's 1.5 million years for humans...well fed bacteria achieved 10-20 beneficial mutations and 100 point mutations that persisted)...ummmm so by comparison the difference between apes and us is 20 beneficial mutations and 100 point mutations? hmmm.  Reading further....the biggest point mutation was the activation of a gene (already present it seemed) that allowed it to metabolize on citrus substrate.  This mutation had to replicate to become more active, but it seems to imply that the design of this gene was already there and a mutation was designed? to occur to allow that gene to activate....strange, no?
Kolo
5 years, 5 months ago
YOU'RE TRYING TOO HARD
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
eh just a summary.  Was actually going to write a book about it at one point.  Still may.  so really just the facts, besides the whole illogic of the whole thing.
Kolo
5 years, 5 months ago
SUMMARY? YOU CALL THAT A SUMMARY? THAT WAS FAHKIN' HUGE.

Write the damn book man. It'll make you some good money =3
Terl
5 years, 5 months ago
Important point about winning the lottery. When you Win the lottery, you have a 100% chance of having won the lottery. the thing you should be looking at, is whats the explnation for teh guy who won the lottery twice, and drank it all, when charities cant even get donations of 1% that?

I saw a great quote in someones forum sig years ago, I wish I could remember it accurately.

I take great comfort in the total indifference of the universe to life, for, wouldnt it be horrible if everything that happened to us, we truely deserved.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
lol, but I am not speaking of life, I'm talking about the universe having stars and elements and not being dark.  And we are not talking about winning the lottery once or twice, but that many times above...This isn't a choice of actions, but physical phenomenon existing in precisely such a very small range and in precise tweaking to each other.  And every scientist knows its tweaked.  They look at it and say, well there must be something causing it...ie an elusive grand unified theory, but what's intriguing about it is that there is seems to be a desired result to these tweaks, ie to produce stars.   And to get away from the theistic implications, they resort to creating (with no evidence) infinite other universes to explain away that we are the lucky universe.  The thing that fixes it for me is that most of these universes will be dead and dark.  That's just pathetic.

Spuug
5 years, 5 months ago
I would appeal to the anthropic principle:  our universe is so finely balanced because we (life, in general) could only arise in such a finely balanced universe.  If it wasn't so, we wouldn't be around to see it.  There may be (or have been) different universes, but they are (or were) boring and lifeless.

Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
We are not talking about life forming so your stated objection is pointless.  We are not talking about philosophy, so your appeal to mythical universes is also poinltess.  We are talking about why if the constants of the universe were an unbelievable fraction off, there would be no stars, no elements, and no other structures, that's the domain of science.  It clearly points to design and intelligence (aka the improbability of the current universe being by chance and an apparent designed outcome, stars)
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.