When Will Evolutionists Confess Their...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#510 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> And in tandem with your chronology of how science is done, people observed great order (read fine tuning) in the universe, and because some of them disliked the idea of God, they set out to explain this observation by hypothesising multiverses and another theory that speaks of a bouncing universe. The bounce has long been discredited so our friends are left with the multiverse yarn to spin. You suggest we wait 10 yrs , i agree. With an assurance to you they wont get nothing in 100 yrs.
N.B. Dont say "multiverse observation ", say multiverse hypothesis.
No, the so called "fine tuning argument" is simply an argument from ignorance at best.

It amounts to "I don't understand, therefore God did it."

Sometimes the honest answer is "We don't know yet". That does not imply God in any way.

And what does the start of the universe have to do with evolution? By taking the debate this far afield you are essentially giving up on both evolution and abiogenesis. Are you sure that you want to do that?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#511 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> And in tandem with your chronology of how science is done, people observed great order (read fine tuning) in the universe, and because some of them disliked the idea of God, they set out to explain this observation by hypothesising multiverses and another theory that speaks of a bouncing universe. The bounce has long been discredited so our friends are left with the multiverse yarn to spin. You suggest we wait 10 yrs , i agree. With an assurance to you they wont get nothing in 100 yrs.
N.B. Dont say "multiverse observation ", say multiverse hypothesis.
This is an incorrect description of the history, though. First, we found certain laws of physics which involve several constants. We use different values of those constants in the same general laws and determine that life as we know it would be impossible except for a fairly narrow range of values for those constants. This is the fine tuning you speak of. It is NOT specifically a matter of 'order', but instead a limited range of values for constants in the equations we write that would be consistent with life if we apply the same equations.

The problem is that the laws we know are not unified: for example the law describing gravity (general relativity) is quite different in form and style from the laws describing fundamental particles (quantum mechanics). One of the HUGE goals of physics is to find a unified description of ALL the laws at the same time. This has been a very difficult thing to do with general relativity and quantum mechanics.

While difficult, there have been several proposals to do exactly such a unification. But one thing that is common to ALL of these proposals is that they describe a multi-verse. This seems to be a requirement in a consistent description of gravity and quantum mechanics in the same theory. Why? We do not know.

But, what we then found is that this multi-verse allows for (but does not require) a solution for the 'fine tuning' problem: if there is a multi-verse, then it is possible the constants vary in that multi-verse.

Now, you are correct that ALL of these proposals are just that: proposals. But they were NOT thought up because someone 'disliked the idea of God'. They were thought up because we wanted a single theory that unified those we have right now. The multi-verse was a natural, and as far as we can tell, a required part of that unification. Generally, scientists desire a single overall theory instead of many isolated, partial theories.

Next, using the 'God hypothesis' does absolutely NOTHING to help in our understanding of the universe. SO God decided to set the constant up the way we see them. Is that any better as an explanation than the idea that the constants just happen to be those values? Without a *mechanism* for determining those values, without a context for how those values could be chosen, without that context being testable, without the whole proposal making some testable predictions,*it has no value at all*.

So, for example, can you use the 'God hypothesis' to determine the density of dark matter around a galaxy? Or the decay cross section for any sub-atomic particle? Or a determination of the expansion rate of the universe? Or a prediction about the strength of the electromagnetic force vs the strong force? Or *any* question at all?

At least the proposals for unifying gravity and quantum mechanics can be tested and we can see to what extent their predictions are upheld in the real world. We can actually make observations and determine which of them best describe the world we see. Perhaps the specific multi-verse aspect cannot be tested ( but even that need not be true-it depends on the specifics), but the rest of the theory can be.

Now, you propose a specific deity as the designer and architect of the universe. A moslem proposes a different deity in the same role and a Hindu proposes several deities in that role. How do you reliably test between these hypotheses?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#512 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
N.B. Dont say "multiverse observation ", say multiverse hypothesis.
If you notice, I wrote multi-verse 'observation' with scare-quotes. I was talking about a specific observation that was proposed to be due to another universe interacting with ours gravitationally. That proposal has since been discounted.

But I would point out that the basic testability of the possibility is shown by this: there *are* possible observations that could be evidence for other universes or to distinguish between different theories that have multi-verses.

Now, what observations can you propose between, say, the deity described by Christians and that proposed by Moslems?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#513 Jun 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you notice, I wrote multi-verse 'observation' with scare-quotes. I was talking about a specific observation that was proposed to be due to another universe interacting with ours gravitationally. That proposal has since been discounted.
But I would point out that the basic testability of the possibility is shown by this: there *are* possible observations that could be evidence for other universes or to distinguish between different theories that have multi-verses.
Now, what observations can you propose between, say, the deity described by Christians and that proposed by Moslems?
Do you think there are other universe's?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#514 Jun 8, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is indeed a disturbing tendency.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has made a compelling video on it: http://youtu.be/2n4THaJ38F8... .
It is my opinion that when creationism lays its hands on the school system, the long term effects will be disastrous.
Biologist Jerry Coyne has just hit the problem right into its core: http://youtu.be/CW9G2YVtBYc... .
Thanks, I will take a look at those sometime soon.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#515 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
Look inside polymaths quote (italics) in my reply up there. Ive raised some issues and they too are italicized.
I have no problem with you arguing about fine tuning and I will leave it to Polymath to discuss, as he knows more about it than anyone else here.

So long as you realise that fine tuning of the universal constants makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to any discussion of whether evolution is correct. Same goes for the Big Bang (which is supported by a ton of evidence). The Big Bang could be replaced tomorrow by a new theory and it would not matter one jot to evolution. Evolution was around 70 years before the BB was even suggested and more than a century before the BB was accepted.

Since: May 14

Europe

#516 Jun 8, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with you arguing about fine tuning and I will leave it to Polymath to discuss, as he knows more about it than anyone else here.
So long as you realise that fine tuning of the universal constants makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to any discussion of whether evolution is correct. Same goes for the Big Bang (which is supported by a ton of evidence). The Big Bang could be replaced tomorrow by a new theory and it would not matter one jot to evolution. Evolution was around 70 years before the BB was even suggested and more than a century before the BB was accepted.
We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.Next we look at evolution though i ll first have to share on why i think Stephen Hawking is an atheist even after making an observation as clearly in support of fine tuning as he did on the expanding universe. And then we ll move on to the idea that Turkanaboy's great grand father was an ape.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#517 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.Next we look at evolution though i ll first have to share on why i think Stephen Hawking is an atheist even after making an observation as clearly in support of fine tuning as he did on the expanding universe. And then we ll move on to the idea that Turkanaboy's great grand father was an ape.
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.Next we look at evolution though i ll first have to share on why i think Stephen Hawking is an atheist even after making an observation as clearly in support of fine tuning as he did on the expanding universe. And then we ll move on to the idea that Turkanaboy's great grand father was an ape.
These multiverse concepts are to be treated as HYPOTHESES.

A short quote:
“I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”. Neil deGrasse Tyson,
.

Here is how it works in your muddled, indoctrinated mind:
1) multiverse does not fit the Bronze age mythology book
2) "hence" it is pseudoscience.

We don't need you in the lab. You are useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world. We don't need creationism in schools for this very same reason. The only thing it will do is replacing science by bronze age crap and caboodle.
Tyson also expressed his concern about the perspective of creationism getting dominant in culture: http://www.youtube.com/watch... .
Creationism in America is a sign of western culture into decline.

Since: May 14

Europe

#518 Jun 8, 2014
We ll be taught these things by Aldous Huxley, the great philosopher and agnostic. Late in his life he uttered these words. "Does the world as a whole posses the value and meaning that we constantly attribute to certain parts of it (such as human beings and their works); and if so, what is the nature of that value and meaning? This is a question which a few years ago, i should not have possed, for like so many of my contemporaries, i took it for granted that there was no meaning. This was partly due to the fact that i shared a common beleif that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole. Partly also due to other non intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning ;consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption
for myself as , no doubt for most of my contemporaries. The philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously one from a certain political and economic system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom......justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt , we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever." Well said. No need to expound.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#519 Jun 8, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think there are other universe's?
I don't know. The answer depends on exactly which version you mean: a large universe where the constants vary from location to location, or a true multi-verse where different, causally limited regions exist, or a combination of the two, etc.

It looks like quantum mechanics implies *some* type of multi-verse, but past that, I have no belief one way or the other.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#520 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.
No, they should not. Pseudo-science is something that has actually been shown to be wrong: like crystal power and creationism. Multi-verse theories have yet to be tested. They are *speculation*, but they are scientific speculation, not pseudoscience.
Next we look at evolution though i ll first have to share on why i think Stephen Hawking is an atheist even after making an observation as clearly in support of fine tuning as he did on the expanding universe. And then we ll move on to the idea that Turkanaboy's great grand father was an ape.
Once again, why would the possibility that the range of constants hospitable to life is a small range lead to the conclusion of there being a deity? You seem to be thinking that 'fine tuning' requires a 'tuner'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#521 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
We ll be taught these things by Aldous Huxley, the great philosopher and agnostic. Late in his life he uttered these words. "Does the world as a whole posses the value and meaning that we constantly attribute to certain parts of it (such as human beings and their works); and if so, what is the nature of that value and meaning? This is a question which a few years ago, i should not have possed, for like so many of my contemporaries, i took it for granted that there was no meaning. This was partly due to the fact that i shared a common beleif that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole. Partly also due to other non intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning ;consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption
for myself as , no doubt for most of my contemporaries. The philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously one from a certain political and economic system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom......justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt , we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever." Well said. No need to expound.
And why do you think that Huxley's viewpoint is the dominant one held by atheists? I think that *we* give meaning to our lives and to the things around us. I don't think that because I am trying to avoid any system of morality, but because I think that *we* are the ones that decide what is and is not moral. Huxley's sexuality is irrelevant to that conclusion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#522 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> And in tandem with your chronology of how science is done, people observed great order (read fine tuning) in the universe, and because some of them disliked the idea of God, they set out to explain this observation by hypothesising multiverses and another theory that speaks of a bouncing universe. The bounce has long been discredited so our friends are left with the multiverse yarn to spin. You suggest we wait 10 yrs , i agree. With an assurance to you they wont get nothing in 100 yrs.
N.B. Dont say "multiverse observation ", say multiverse hypothesis.
You might note that Poly had the word observation in quotes.

Since the word tuning implies a period of adjustment, please provide the evidence of a period during which the universe underwent a series of adjustments before settling on its final settings.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#523 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.Next we look at evolution though i ll first have to share on why i think Stephen Hawking is an atheist even after making an observation as clearly in support of fine tuning as he did on the expanding universe. And then we ll move on to the idea that Turkanaboy's great grand father was an ape.
Here's a question. Suppose that it turns out that there are, in fact, only a very small range of fundamental constants that would allow for life to exist in the universe (in other words, fine tuning).

How does that support the hypothesis that there is a deity that designed the universe?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#524 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
We ll be taught these things by Aldous Huxley, the great philosopher and agnostic. Late in his life he uttered these words. "Does the world as a whole posses the value and meaning that we constantly attribute to certain parts of it (such as human beings and their works); and if so, what is the nature of that value and meaning? This is a question which a few years ago, i should not have possed, for like so many of my contemporaries, i took it for granted that there was no meaning. This was partly due to the fact that i shared a common beleif that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole. Partly also due to other non intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning ;consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption
for myself as , no doubt for most of my contemporaries. The philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously one from a certain political and economic system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom......justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt , we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever." Well said. No need to expound.
How does the hypothesis that there is a designer of the universe have anything to do with morality (how humans deal with each other)?

For example, if the universe was designed and created by a race of beings in the multi-verse, why does that have *any* impact on how we humans should treat each other? Why do our goals have to align in any way with the goals of whatever designers there could be for the universe? If they designed the universe was a weapon of terror against another race of beings in the multi-verse, would that have *any* impact on how you would interact with other people?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#525 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.Next we look at evolution though i ll first have to share on why i think Stephen Hawking is an atheist even after making an observation as clearly in support of fine tuning as he did on the expanding universe. And then we ll move on to the idea that Turkanaboy's great grand father was an ape.
I notice that you failed to address his basic point: that any discussion of fine tuning has NO IMPACT on the truth of evolution or the Big Bang. Both are well supported by the actual evidence. There may need to be small changes in either, but the basic ideas are proved beyond any doubt.

Since: May 14

South Africa

#526 Jun 8, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that *we* give meaning to our lives and to the things around us.......... I think that *we* are the ones that decide what is and is not moral..
see you toe the line of Huxleys assesment. He speaks of "liberation". You want to decide what is and is not moral, as oppossed to having those decisions being made for you by (some) God. He captures your mind perfectly.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#527 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> We have agreed with him to wait 10 yrs, in the meantime these multiverse theories should be treated as pseudoscience.
No, there is a difference between a hypothesis, known and represented as a hypothesis, and pseudoscience. The multiverse is a hypothesis. Astrology is pseudoscience.

One simply asks questions or proposes an idea that has not yet been tested.

The other claims knowledge without evidence or uses the evidence available to make claims that do not actually follow from that evidence. Saturated fat being bad for you is pseudoscience, because it was a claim that no amount of research has been able to substantiate while various politicians, drug companies, and dogmatic vegans have behaved as if it is established science, and in many cases made fortunes by doing so.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#528 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> see you toe the line of Huxleys assesment. He speaks of "liberation". You want to decide what is and is not moral, as oppossed to having those decisions being made for you by (some) God. He captures your mind perfectly.
No, I think there is no God, so we *have* to make these decisions for ourselves. Too many people want to shirk the responsibility for doing just that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#529 Jun 8, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
We ll be taught these things by Aldous Huxley, the great philosopher and agnostic. Late in his life he uttered these words. "Does the world as a whole posses the value and meaning that we constantly attribute to certain parts of it (such as human beings and their works); and if so, what is the nature of that value and meaning? This is a question which a few years ago, i should not have possed, for like so many of my contemporaries, i took it for granted that there was no meaning. This was partly due to the fact that i shared a common beleif that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole. Partly also due to other non intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning ;consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption
for myself as , no doubt for most of my contemporaries. The philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously one from a certain political and economic system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom......justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt , we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever." Well said. No need to expound.
We have come a long way from there. Unlike the hippies who thought sexual possession and jealousy were trained characteristics of a bad system, we have come to realise that these things are innate in human nature. And it makes sense to, in the light of evolution. A human who is happy for his partner to sleep around is not going to be very successful at reproducing. Its not that we think it through in those terms. Its that we have these feelings at an instinctive level and now we understand WHY we have those feelings. Jealousy is not irrational after all, its a feeling we experience for a reason. Good bye free love.

Feminists also thought for a long time that all the differences between men and women were trained into them. Again, coming out the other side of that misconception, we see there are real differences...

But in terms of learning and developing, these may have been necessary fictions for a while, a chance to strip away the learned behaviours that might not have been optimal for today. From inside that bubble, Huxley and others could not tell what was learned and what was innate. Perhaps now we have a better idea.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 6 min It aint necessari... 911
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min It aint necessari... 43,131
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 43 min It aint necessari... 18,490
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 44 min Blitzking 204,731
Sun could not have formed as thought 1 hr Your Done 16
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Dogen 151,462
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Mon Bren 1
More from around the web