YEC part Trois

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

[BestValue]

I HAVE addressed the fine-tuning. And I've explained more than once that the fine-tuning is part of the strong anthropic principle whereas your somewhat tautological version is called the weak anthropic principle. The only reason I bring up the multi-verse is because it is the atheist cosmologist's solution to the fine-tuning problem.

As I see it, you have only 3 choices:

1. Believe the multi-verse exists.
   
2. Believe God exists.
   
3. Deny the fine-tuning problem exists.
   

Since you refuse to do the first or the second, why not just quit belly aching and explain why you do the third? (There IS a fourth option: to acknowledge the fine-tuning but chalk it up to chance. In the interest of Christian charity, I granted you the intelligence to reject that one out of hand.)

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Hi BestValue. I'm pretty sure others have already addressed fine tuning already. I did too in my way.

You only need take fine tuning seriously if you start with the assumption that the universe or god wanted life to exist. Then you can say that the universe or god did something really very clever by making a universe where it could/did happen.

That's only necessary if you think the whole point of having a universe is so that estate agents and income tax can exist. We have no evidence that this was the aim or that there was an aim.

Much simpler just to accept that there was no 'intent' at all and that life is a trivial side effect.

Looking at it dispassionately most of the universe seems to be for the 'purpose' of making black holes. We are a speck of dust in comparison.

[EllieArroway]

Hi Best

My understanding is that Dr Mersini-Houghton predicted that there should be anomalies in CMBR distribution & that these anomalies cannot be accounted for by known physics and would best be explained by the gravitational effect of other universes.

These anomalies were indeed found & this presents good (although NOT conclusive) evidence for a multiverse. It's the first possible evidence that's ever been found. But as we know, it takes an awful lot more than that to get to "proven" status. Like I said, it's intriguing.

You're quite right - it's not "accepted" by other physicists across the board. It's too early for that. Much testing needs to be done - that's how science works. It would be astonishing if all of her peers accepted it without question at this stage. So, that's pretty irrelevant.

I'd like to compare your comment about this, though, with your assertion a few pages ago that one lone astrophysicist has PROVEN the time dilation model, even though not a single one of his peers (having reviewed his data) agrees with him.

It's fascinating, is it not, that you'll ignore completely the lack of peer support when it's an idea that suits you - but flag it up as your first objection when it's something that doesn't. Confirmation bias much?

Also - you're ready to dismiss Dr Mersini-Houghton's assertion about the multiverse but are delighted to hear that she (allegedly) thinks the universe has an edge. In other words - yet again - you'll pick out the bits you like and dismiss the bits you don't.

Come on, Best - you're better than that, surely. Be honest with yourself if you can't be honest with me.

And finally, they are looking for a CAUSE for the anomalies in the CMBR. But if we follow the EllieArroway School of Cosmology, we can just say that some things don't need a cause and forget the whole thing

Erm

I don't believe I ever said that things don't have a cause - most things obviously do. My objection is to the assumption that EVERYTHING must have a cause when quantum physics shows quite clearly and conclusively that, in the sub-atomic realm, events occur without a cause all the time. The birth of our universe could have been a quantum event, not requiring a "cause".

This has been explained to you about 50,000 times. I thought you'd at least understood what I'd said but it seems not.

(Oh, and CMBR was formed AFTER the BB, so nothing to do with any cause).

But for now, I will keep my Skeptic's hat firmly in place and choose to believe things based on evidence and not blind faith

Yes, dear, you do that. Ahem. Exercise the same scepticism you do over dragons and the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans and you'll be just fine!

And, I'm awfully sorry, but you have not yet managed to raise fine-tuning with me - you've merely mentioned the conclusion, but not the argument itself. Start talking about the electromagnetic force, the vacuum energy density of the universe, the weight of the neutron and so on, and I will then accept that you understand the fine-tuning argument (which I can proceed to demolish for you )

And yes, with regard to fine-tuning I completely agree with what Back has just said.

Toodle-oo, old chum xx

[EllieArroway]

1. Believe the multi-verse exists
2. Believe God exists
3. Deny the fine-tuning problem exists

1: Don't know, there's little evidence
2: Don't know - there's NO evidence (but a lot of evidence that the Christian god doesn't exist if you're defining it in that way)
3: I don't think there is a fine-tuning "problem".

We exist in a universe capable of supporting us. That is enough to satisfy me. We are not the reason the universe is here - matter accounts for the tiniest fraction of it's entirety. I think we, and all the stars and planets are just flotsam and jetsam, a bit of contamination in an otherwise empty and cold universe.

I think we're amazing, Best - why don't you? The universe, without paying the matter any heed, has found a way to talk about itself - us. We are the universe looking at itself, talking about itself and understanding itself. We are, literally, made of stardust - beautiful products of a beautiful universe.

I find that about a trillion times more compelling and more moving than a frankly repulsive story about a god who likes the smell of burning flesh and demands blood sacrifices for no good reason.

Why don't you grow up, face reality and enjoy life for what it is instead of buying into the quite staggeringly stupid stories invented by bronze age cave dwellers? Seriously.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Standing ovation for Ellie

[EllieArroway]

Thank you, Bore :)

To anyone: I don't always agree with Pat Condell, but my goodness me is absolutely spot on.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Thanks for that, Ellie. I agree. Spot on.

[BestValue]

"We exist in a universe capable of supporting us. That is enough to satisfy me."

That is BLIND faith and should not be enough to satisfy any rational thinker.

"I think we, and all the stars and planets are just flotsam and jetsam, a bit of contamination in an otherwise empty and cold universe."

"I think we're amazing, Best - why don't you?"

You don't see a contradiction between these two statements?

"Why don't you grow up, face reality and enjoy life for what it is instead of buying into the quite staggeringly stupid stories invented by bronze age cave dwellers? Seriously."

Because I have to follow the evidence where it leads. God is for grown-ups. Atheism is for little children.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

There is NO evidence for the god you believe in. None whatsoever. Your faith has blinded you.

As Ellie has so eloquently said, we are all animated stardust, quite literally children of the universe. That is wonderful and awe-inspiring and enough.

[AgeofReason]

Applause for Ellie! Cries for more!!

Best, if you have actual evidence for creation in general or for the God of the bible specifically - please provide it! AND please provide a reason why, although the vast majority of scientists in the relevant field(s) reject it, you believe it to be valid. To make it a little harder for you, can you do that without suggesting that all those dissenting scientists are either blindly following their teaching, or are willfully denying the existence of a god to live a life free of "his" rules?? Those are terrible arguments anyway, so I'm actually doing you a favour here.

One last thing Best, and it you've already covered this and I've forgotten, then I apologize. Do you believe the Grand Canyon was actually created in a few days by a flood event? (Yes, I realize your 6-10K year old Earth views force you to reject the scientific explanation, but do you hold it as a mystery yet to be solved or do you subscribe to the aforementioned flood hypothesis?)

[Januarymadness]

I cant believe I missed all of this. You guys fell off my active thread list. Off to have a good read x

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Welcome back, January! And Age!

[EllieArroway]

That is BLIND faith and should not be enough to satisfy any rational thinker

How so? Faith is belief without evidence (and ALL faith is blind) - what am I asserting without evidence? As Back said, the fine-tuning argument only makes sense, or represents any kind of conundrum, if you begin with a starting assumption that we were somehow meant to be.....that the universe wants us here. And why on earth should we assume any such thing?

We evolved in the only kind of universe we could evolve in (as far as we know) - that's why we're here.

I would be more impressed, and more inclined to believe in a designing deity, if we somehow managed to exist in a universe that didn't suit us at all. Why would your god have to "design" the universe for us - he could stick us anywhere he liked. We could live in absolutely any kind of universe, with any kind of properties, if we assume an omnipotent creator. The fact that we can clearly ONLY exist in a universe with these particular properties strongly, strongly suggests that we have evolved through natural processes without the need for any creator at all.

It's also worth mentioning that if you construct a model (as has been done) of a universe that came to exist only through natural processes without an intelligent, guiding thought process behind it it looks precisely like......wait for it....THIS ONE! Isn't that one almighty coincidence, Best - the universe looks EXACTLY the way it should look if no god were responsible for designing it?

You don't see a contradiction between these two statements?

No. Should I? You think we can only be amazing if we're of such supreme importance that the entire universe was made just for us? That's some ego you've got there!

It's our complete and total lack of importance on a cosmic scale that makes us precious & rare, in my opinion. If we were nothing more than the playthings of some ranting, homophobic, genocidal lunatic as you seem to believe, then THAT would make us unimportant. My life would be truly meaningless if your god exists - and I'm awfully glad it doesn't.

Because I have to follow the evidence where it leads

You have no evidence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Sorry about that.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Talking of the Grand Canyon being created by a flood event, I really like this exploration of the creationist 'evidence'

[AgeofReason]

Hey Bore! LOL! You beat me to the punch with that video! It's a really good one... what are the odds we both had the same video picked out?

For anyone who has been wondering - I've been in touch with Best and he will be returning shortly! Someone should remind Ellie to buy a new bottle of Aspirin...

[Januarymadness]

Oh dear it is like that is it?

[BestValue]

"There is NO evidence for the god you believe in. None whatsoever. Your faith has blinded you."

Keep deluding yourself, Bore. I've provided plenty of evidence for my beliefs every step of the way. You, not so much.

"As Ellie has so eloquently said, we are all animated stardust, quite literally children of the universe."

Ellie wouldn't know eloquence if it smacked her in the face. If you want true eloquence, read the Bible. Start with the book of Psalms.

"That is wonderful and awe-inspiring and enough."

'Wonderful' and 'awe-inspiring' should never be 'enough' for any rationally- thinking person. Evidence is all that matters.

[BestValue]

"To anyone: I don't always agree with Pat Condell, but my goodness me THIS is absolutely spot on."

Pat Condell is the spawn of Satan.

[BestValue]

Condell also misquotes Jesus by claiming he said, "Seek the kingdom of heaven within." New Age crazies get this from the Gospel of Thomas which was written centuries after the events. Jesus did not say the kingdom of heaven is "within" you but "among" you or "in your midst". He was talking about himself. If Condell can't get a simple thing like that right, you can't trust a word he says.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

New age crazies?

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Of course I agree this was written much later and that you can't go around believing something just because it was added to the bible, but you might get some opposition from those who think Luke lived in the time of Jesus and was his disciple and friend.

I've provided plenty of evidence for my beliefs

Even if what you had put forward was evidence for 'a' god it wouldn't be evidence for 'your' god.

Christians everywhere assume that the alternative to no god at all is that theirs is the real one.

[Januarymadness]

Bad day best? You come here to vent?

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Watched the first of a new series on BBC2 last night Rise of the Continents. It's presented by Iain Stewart, Professor of Geoscience Communication. The first episode was 'Africa' and covered plate tectonics, geology, evolution, diamonds, pyramids and more. It even had transitional fossils!

Made me think of Best and made me for him.

[ICBINEG]

hallo all.

I haven't been joining in here because I thought I was making progress in a Pmed conversation with best about evolution...

I think I should probably make you aware of how that panned out.

I spent A LOT of time and effort explaining that the whole concept of a 'bit of DNA code that makes a ducks bill' is factually incorrect (because humans have the same proteins that make ducks bills but we use it for hair etc), and hence the creationist 'problem' with evolution suddenly producing a new organ/limb/piece of information was not actually a problem that relates to reality.

And you know, encouraging noises were made...enough to make me persist any way.

And then I got asked in what way the argument that 'the rate of genetic change seen in bacteria nowadays is too slow to allow for the spontaneous creation of say a new ribosome in the amount of time it is generally thought that the original first ribosome was developed' was flawed.

I pointed out that:

1. modern bacteria have a massive suite of error checking protocols in the form of their already existing ribosome. This means that errors are made in much lower frequency than error would have been made in an organism that lacks a ribsome system altogether.
   

1. there is a fantastic evolutionary advantage to having any error checking system at all...so non-existent is replaced with crappy is replaced with better and better in a rapid fashion. There is however no evolutionary advantage whatsoever to introducing a secondary crappy system to an organism that ALREADY HAS a fuck off awesome system in place.
   

Hence the fact that modern bacteria do not evolve a second ribosome system gives you no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a first ribosome system could not have arisen spontaneously.

You will be utterly amazed to hear that this is the point that best stopped responding....

I am too depressed to look through this thread and find out if he is still trotting out the same nonsense that was spouted in the first YEC thread that caused me to engage in the first place....but I would be utterly unsurprised to find it is so.

So what can I say to all you lovely advocates of truth?

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH CREATIONISTS

You may as well be talking to your own reflection.

If it helps you clarify your own ideas then go right ahead but do not fool yourself that there is an intelligence on the other end of the line that can accept, learn or change their views in response to your arguments.

[Januarymadness]

I am glad you work in science. You have a brilliant way of explaining complex concepts.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Threads like this here and elsewhere would be frustrating if not for all the other people looking on and thinking:

"Hey, I thought there was proof of creationism. That's what I was taught in Sunday School".

and

"I thought evolution was just a guess. I didn't realise that it can be shown to be working".

There should always be one thread going for new people to see that exposes creationism for what it is.

And one for religion in general for those people who were taught that the gospels were written at the time by the disciples and that the Romans had records showing that Jesus even existed.