|
|
12-11-2017, 08:15 PM
|
#4816
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Natural selection is not necessary until life appears on the scene. Before that there were no sand castles.
|
Then neither is natural selection necessary in my sandbag example.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
12-11-2017, 08:18 PM
|
#4817
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
FTFY!
Like what?
|
Like why no one here can have an intelligent conversation with you.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
12-11-2017, 08:44 PM
|
#4818
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And until those scientists make their great discovery, the Antrophic Principle remains a very strong argument for the design, purpose and intentionalty behind the existence of the universe.
|
At its best the Anthropic Principle is a god of the gaps argument, i.e., find some question for which science does not yet have an answer then proclaim "god did it". What happens when science eventually finds the answer? You have to go look for some other gap.
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
I think we have closed the gap embodied by the Anthropic Principle. Consider the facts.
- There are four forces in the universe: electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak.
- Each of those forces take the form F = f(k,x)
- There is a k(constant) for each force, the x being one or more variables.
- All we know comes from our observation of the interactions of those four forces. This includes reading any text since the ink on the page, the page itself, the light by which we read it, the sensing of that light by our optic nerve are all interactions of the four forces.
- If you connect the dots then anything regarded as a physical constant leads back to those four forces and their respective constant k. This applies to even to the masses of atomic particles, Avogadro's number, absolute zero, etc.
- Thus there are only four independent physical constants, and if the unified field theory is correct (the jury is still out) there is only one. And there may be some reason that constant has a specific value. Until we know that "God did it" is not the default answer.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-11-2017, 08:58 PM
|
#4819
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Like why no one here can have an intelligent conversation with you.
|
Ad hominem!
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-11-2017, 09:00 PM
|
#4820
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Then neither is natural selection necessary in my sandbag example.
|
It is necessary. And if you can't see that ...
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-12-2017, 12:02 PM
|
#4821
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
At its best the Anthropic Principle is a god of the gaps argument, i.e., find some question for which science does not yet have an answer then proclaim "god did it". What happens when science eventually finds the answer? You have to go look for some other gap.
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
I think we have closed the gap embodied by the Anthropic Principle. Consider the facts.
- There are four forces in the universe: electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak.
- Each of those forces take the form F = f(k,x)
- There is a k(constant) for each force, the x being one or more variables.
- All we know comes from our observation of the interactions of those four forces. This includes reading any text since the ink on the page, the page itself, the light by which we read it, the sensing of that light by our optic nerve are all interactions of the four forces.
- If you connect the dots then anything regarded as a physical constant leads back to those four forces and their respective constant k. This applies to even to the masses of atomic particles, Avogadro's number, absolute zero, etc.
- Thus there are only four independent physical constants, and if the unified field theory is correct (the jury is still out) there is only one. And there may be some reason that constant has a specific value. Until we know that "God did it" is not the default answer.
|
And what are the odds that all those constants come together in just such a precise way as to make life possible on this planet?
See..you're ducking the issue. My airborne sandbag analogy is dead on the mark. And the reason you don't like it is because you know that it is. This is why I asked you yesterday about explosions of the specific nature I described in my 4806. Just what is the probability in the aggregate that this alleged humongous Big Bang explosion would put the earth just at exactly the right distance from the sun so that our water wouldn't boil but be warm enough so that it could condense and evaporate at lower levels in our atmosphere? Or that the orbit of our earth around the sun is almost at perfect circle, unlike many other planets that have elliptical orbits which make for extreme variances in temperatures and light? Or that our sun, unlike other stars, is just the right kind of star with minimal variance which makes it possible to put a steady amount of energy and light? Or that the rapid rotation of the earth is just right to also reduce great variations in temperature and allow photosynthesis all over the planet? Or that our moon is just at the right distance from the earth to make for the perfect gravitational interaction between them, otherwise life would be impossible on earth? Or if our gravitational force was altered by only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, life would be impossible on this planet because our sun would not exist? Or if Jupiter were not precisely where it is and in its exact orbit, it's gravitational orbit would not act as our cosmic " magnetic" by attracting comets and asteroids that would otherwise bombard the earth, etc., etc, etc., etc.?
And then you accuse me of appealing to the "god of the gaps" argument, when you, evidently, didn't think there were any gaps in scientific knowledge when you boldly proclaimed that the universe is an ordered system? So...since you didn't think at that time there were any such gaps in knowledge then, Shirley, you should be able to explain to us how all this precise order in the universe could have resulted from an explosion of the nature I described yesterday. I think my comparatively tiny little airplane dumping a tiny 200 lb. sack of sand over a tiny airstrip stands an infinitely better chance that each grain of sand would drop to the ground in such a way as to form a sandcastle than would your Big Firecracker in the Sky have in forming this humongous universe in just such a precise way as to make this planet inhabitable. We know from real world experience and observation that unaided, unguided, purposeless, random explosions can only create destruction, havoc and chaos -- never order, Mr. Actor. To believe otherwise defies all reason and flies in the face of all rational thought! However, if any of us still want to cling to the Big Firecracker Theory as the beginning of all things then, Shirley, that explosion was as carefully thought out and planned and designed and purposed as the explosions in our internal combustion engines that drive our wheels that get us to and fro. I just cannot muster your brand of absurd, blind, irrational faith to believe otherwise. It is infinitely more reasonable and rational to believe what the prophet wrote:
Isa 45:18
18 For this is what the Lord says —
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited —
he says:
"I am the Lord,
and there is no other.
NIV
You see, there was purpose, design and intentionality behind the creation of the entire universe, and all that God did had the ultimate goal -- the ultimate purpose that this little planet would support human life. All that God did had aim and direction and purpose.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
12-12-2017, 01:23 PM
|
#4822
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And what are the odds that all those constants come together in just such a precise way as to make life possible on this planet?
|
How "precise" do they have to be to make life possible? Give me a number. Plus or minus what?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-12-2017, 02:01 PM
|
#4823
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
How "precise" do they have to be to make life possible? Give me a number. Plus or minus what?
|
The number is higher than the number of atoms in the universe!
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 10 to 22 power planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking; one chance in 10 to 138 power, that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only about 10 to 70 power atoms in the entire universe.
By the way that is Dr. Ross. Not that you'd give a flip...
So...how did the Big Firecracker in the Sky produce order in the universe?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
Last edited by boxcar; 12-12-2017 at 02:02 PM.
|
|
|
12-12-2017, 11:11 PM
|
#4824
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 10 to 22 power planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking; one chance in 10 to 138 power, that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only about 10 to 70 power atoms in the entire universe.
|
Argumentum ad verecundiam, i.e., appeal to authority.
In what peer reviewed journal were Ross's findings published?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-13-2017, 08:31 AM
|
#4825
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Argumentum ad verecundiam, i.e., appeal to authority.
In what peer reviewed journal were Ross's findings published?
|
Maybe the same one as your's? He has written several books. Why don't you buy a few? Who knows...maybe he reveals that his doctorate was made in China and special ordered online through Ebay.
And by the way...aren't you also appealing to authority by asking me which "peer reviewed journal" his study was published? Just sayin'....
So...quit stalling. Have you figured out how we got an ordered universe from the Big Bang -- or is that, yet, another can we kick down the road -- another mystery that we'll all have to wait with bated breath for the high priests of scientism to solve?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
12-13-2017, 11:24 AM
|
#4826
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And by the way...aren't you also appealing to authority by asking me which "peer reviewed journal" his study was published?
|
No, I am not. Peer review and appeal to authority are not the same thing. Google it.
Meanwhile, if you can tell me which of Dr. Ross's books contains this calculations and data I just might read it and make my own contribution to the peer review. Or perhaps you could provide me with said calculations and data.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-13-2017, 11:52 AM
|
#4827
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
He has written several books. Why don't you buy a few?
|
He charges too much. I can get cheaper toilet paper at Wal Mart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Who knows...maybe he reveals that his doctorate was made in China and special ordered online through Ebay.
|
More likely Oral Roberts U. in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-13-2017, 01:36 PM
|
#4828
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
No, I am not. Peer review and appeal to authority are not the same thing. Google it.
|
Of course it is the same thing otherwise you would not always appeal to peer reviewed studies. The whole purpose behind "peer reviews" is to get the opinions of experts in the submitter's given field. And by definition, an "expert" is one with special skill or knowledge that represents mastery of a particular subject. And it's this mastery which makes their opinion authoritative. It's what makes the peer reviewers authorities in their field. Therefore by submitting a work to be peer reviewed, the scientist is seeking the collective opinion of his work by authorities in his own field.
Quote:
Meanwhile, if you can tell me which of Dr. Ross's books contains this calculations and data I just might read it and make my own contribution to the peer review. Or perhaps you could provide me with said calculations and data.
|
Yeah...okay.
Don't know which of his books were involved in his study. But Ross has his own website. That may give you a clue and/or his contact info.
http://old.reasons.org/explore/type/todays-new-reason
Meanwhile, quit stalling and answer my question about the Big Bang Bang and how an orderly universe could have been a consequence of that explosion.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 12:35 AM
|
#4829
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Of course it is the same thing otherwise you would not always appeal to peer reviewed studies. The whole purpose behind "peer reviews" is to get the opinions of experts in the submitter's given field. And by definition, an "expert" is one with special skill or knowledge that represents mastery of a particular subject. And it's this mastery which makes their opinion authoritative. It's what makes the peer reviewers authorities in their field. Therefore by submitting a work to be peer reviewed, the scientist is seeking the collective opinion of his work by authorities in his own field.
|
Consider the etymology of the words expert and authority.
- The word expert derives from the words experience and experiment.
- The word authority derives from the Latin word auctoritas which means invention, advice, opinion, influence, command.
The two words are by no means synonymous. Peer reviewers are not authorities in their fields, they are experts.
Aristotle believed that bodies would fall at a rate proportional to their mass. Because he was an authority no one questioned this for centuries (almost 2000 years). The along came Galileo who performed experiments which proved that Aristotle was full of shit. Galileo was not an authority but he was an expert.
It is no accident that we refer to cops and judges as "the authorities". They do not persuade, they command.
The question now is whether Dr. Ross is an authority or an expert. His Wikipedia page says he is and astrophysicist which sounds like he is an expert. However, it also says that he is a Christian apologist and old earth creationist. That sound like he’s an authority, but I’ll withhold judgment for the moment.
I can’t help but wonder who writes his paycheck. Some university perhaps? Apparently not. His Wikipedia page also says “He is known for establishing his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe (the link you posted) that promotes progressive and day-age forms of old Earth creationism.” "Promotes" means he has an agenda. His ministry is where his paycheck comes from, giving him absolutely no reason to submit any of his stuff for peer review. He's an authority.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 12:47 AM
|
#4830
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Meanwhile, quit stalling ...
|
From the granddaddy of all stallers. Of all the questions I've asked you the percentage that you've answered is still in the single digits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
... and answer my question about the Big Bang Bang and how an orderly universe could have been a consequence of that explosion.
|
I did answer that question even before you asked it.
__________________
Sapere aude
Last edited by Actor; 12-14-2017 at 12:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|