LOL - "Creation Science" - LOL

[Wuwei]

I have said this before,

The fine tuning of physics laws is often cited by Intelligent Designers as one proof of God, but it is also an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is amazing that the the values of physical constants and the fundamental forces allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA.

I have studied physics over many decades and am awed by the nature quantum mechanics of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.

To me the great mysteries are why the hard sciences follows mathematics to a minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.

Intelligent design Christians want to focus on God with whatever liturgy they use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. My religion is a continually transforming deism. They are stuck with an ancient text that is taken literally.

I would think an artist would be more impressed if someone ignored the artist and spent a life time studying his art rather than a lifetime praising the artist and sacrificing animals at an altar for him.

.

 

[surada]

I once felt that way, and I said if there was heaven, I have done nothing to deserve hell so I would go to heaven. I said it to a Catholic priest while doing pre-marriage counseling. My to-be wife asked him in private if that was true he said yes. It was comforting to her, (and surprisingly a little to me too.)
.

Neither Jews nor Muslims believe in Original Sin (nor do I) so they aren't saddled with that "sin".

 

[james bond]

That's about as dumb as I ever heard.. Why don't you write to Liberty University with your observation. Science doesn't back up the Bible. You fundamentalists will kill Christianity if you keep it up.

You can't explain the "observation," while I can. Go ahead and try you atheist putz. Atheists need to die (before they get it) of the iron core and molten liquid around it. How can something like this evolve?

If you have no answer, then just say, "I need to die before I get it."

 

[Hollie]

I just read the final chapters of the (313 pg) book "Why People Believe Weird Things". Michael Shermer is a well known author and personality but his book was very disappointing. It was mostly tales about people who believe in intelligent design, clairvoyance, ghosts, the holocaust hoax, alien abductions, etc. His WHY was very brief. People are drawn to,
Immediate gratification. A quick easy answer to what their own future is, where the universe came from ...
Morality and Meaning. Science and cold logic omits the meaning of life and a code for humans ...
Hope. Humans seek a better life and greater levels of happiness...

It seems that these requirements are innate in humans and can surpass science and logic.

Belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated in separate parts of the brain and can coexist to a certain extent. Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it.
.

I guess the notion of justice / injustice defeats the purpose of the eternal sacrifice... that sacrifice is for sins against God (as per Christian theology) but what about man against man??? Who pays the price and who gets rewards??

That was the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority.

My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

 

[Hollie]

Well said.. Problem is the fundamentalists will ultimately drive people away from faith. Even little kids question Jonah being swallowed by a fish..

Once it is explained as a comic novella about how Jonah wanted God to destroy the people of Ninevah who had repented... it makes a lot of sense.

So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are not always the books one should use to support ethical foundations.

Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest

Well it beats the alternative...

 

[Wuwei]

My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

This is an excerpt of a letter I sent to someone who was writing a book about peoples view of life.

There is a Zen story that I always tried to live up to. It is about a man who was chased to a cliff by a lion. He found a vine growing down the cliff-side and started climbing down. The lion couldn't follow, but there was another lion at the bottom of the cliff. The man could go neither up nor down. Then a mouse started nibbling at the top of the vine. In not too long the vine would be severed. Then he saw some grapes growing at the side of the cliff that he could reach. How delicious!​

​

I thought that was one of those unsatisfying stories that only a Zen master could cook up until about a year later, when I saw a reference to the "lions of birth and death." It dawned on me then what the story was about. I always took literature so literally. We are all caught on a vine. We just have to make the best of it. We are all visitors to this house of self-awareness. We should be cordial guests during our brief stay, and no matter what, we should be happy that we were invited.​

.

 

[Wuwei]

So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are not always the books one should use to support ethical foundations.

Certainly from our perspective it is tremendously arbitrary and foolish. From the perspective of the believer it is human nature, and called bias conformation. IMHO it could be considered a defect where the person has blind spots in their cognition and confabulate over them so that they are in harmony with their defect.

I think it's similar to Anosognosia, a condition in which a person with a disability is cognitively unaware of having it. I'm thinking the disability could be an immutable belief in flat earth, ESP, literal creationism, etc. This is one clinical example ...

The Anton-Babinski syndrome (Wikipedia)​

is a rare symptom of brain damage occurring in the occipital lobe. Those who have it are cortically blind, but affirm, often quite adamantly and in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, that they are capable of seeing. Failing to accept being blind, people with Anton syndrome dismiss evidence of their condition and employ confabulation to fill in the missing sensory input​

.

 

[abu afak]

So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are not always the books one should use to support ethical foundations.

Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​

- Stephen Roberts.

`

 

[Dagosa]

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​

- Stephen Roberts.

`

Exactly ! At least an agnostic is open to the truth. A devout anti science Christian has no interest in it.

 

[Dagosa]

I have said this before,

The fine tuning of physics laws is often cited by Intelligent Designers as one proof of God, but it is also an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is amazing that the the values of physical constants and the fundamental forces allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA.

I have studied physics over many decades and am awed by the nature quantum mechanics of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.

To me the great mysteries are why the hard sciences follows mathematics to a minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.

Intelligent design Christians want to focus on God with whatever liturgy they use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. My religion is a continually transforming deism. They are stuck with an ancient text that is taken literally.

I would think an artist would be more impressed if someone ignored the artist and spent a life time studying his art rather than a lifetime praising the artist and sacrificing animals at an altar for him.

.

If we think we are just fine running the physics we already have, remember that QT was not tuning, it turned Newtonian Physics on its head. The physics that we use now is just adaptable to the situation we are in. Our daily life doesn’t lend it self to thinking about Quantum theory But Newtonion Physics. Until of course, you pick up your cell phone. 99.99 % of the population doesn’t even know or understand this. . . That’s why religion is so popular. It’s for the Masses who need their actions controlled to protect themselves from their own ignorance.

 

[Wuwei]

If we think we are just fine running the physics we already have, remember that QT was not tuning, it turned Newtonian Physics on its head. The physics that we use now is just adaptable to the situation we are in. Our daily life doesn’t lend it self to thinking about Quantum theory But Newtonion Physics. Until of course, you pick up your cell phone. 99.99 % of the population doesn’t even know or understand this. . . That’s why religion is so popular. It’s for the Masses who need their actions controlled to protect themselves from their own ignorance.

I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
Fundamental forces,
the speed of light in vacuum c,
the gravitational constant G,
the Planck constant h,
the elementary charge e.
fine-structure constant α, et al.
.

 

[Dagosa]

I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
Fundamental forces,
the speed of light in vacuum c,
the gravitational constant G,
the Planck constant h,
the elementary charge e.
fine-structure constant α, et al.
.

And you realize, none of which you listed is absolute and subject to change. Some maybe on another level which would shake the foundation of atomic physics as we know it. Really, who ever considered the universe was once no bigger then a basketball unless we looked at everything on the atomic level instead of the molecular level. We always leave some thing open for a complete revision of physics.

Still, we don’t constider QT when we are shooting quail; or doing a short term weather forecast; it’s still Newtonian physics. So really, nothing is discarded , just added on to. And the most trivial of revision may ultimately lead to a completely new set of laws, all compliant in only one set of circumstances.

 

[Dagosa]

if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
Fundamental forces,

Really, stability is only an illusion and only from our POV. The galaxies are not stable from a stars lifeting POV. They die, are swallowed up and/or regenerated From their POV with dynamic and frequent regularity.

A fly from its POV lives a long a fulfilling lifetime in only 15-25 days. Whose to say that from another, 80 years is a long time. Or even 10,000 years. So, just a different understanding of time makes all of our observations suspect. Even those you listed. Who is to say that everything we have or will experience is happening simultaneously. That makes all measured velocities over time, irrelevant for example. So then, your list is less important then position of the observer.

 

[Dagosa]

I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
Fundamental forces,
the speed of light in vacuum c,
the gravitational constant G,
the Planck constant h,
the elementary charge e.
fine-structure constant α, et al.
.

I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
Fundamental forces,
the speed of light in vacuum c,
the gravitational constant G,
the Planck constant h,
the elementary charge e.
fine-structure constant α, et al.
.

Given what we know right now, absolutely. But with no exceptions, over time there are major changes in the way we view our world(s) and the physics we use to understand it. The biggest mistake science can ever make, is to sit back and think we have explained anything completely .

 

[Wuwei]

And you realize, none of which you listed is absolute and subject to change. Some maybe on another level which would shake the foundation of atomic physics as we know it. Really, who ever considered the universe was once no bigger then a basketball unless we looked at everything on the atomic level instead of the molecular level. We always leave some thing open for a complete revision of physics.

Still, we don’t constider QT when we are shooting quail; or doing a short term weather forecast; it’s still Newtonian physics. So really, nothing is discarded , just added on to. And the most trivial of revision may ultimately lead to a completely new set of laws, all compliant in only one set of circumstances.

Of course. That is all very well known.

Really, stability is only an illusion and only from our POV. The galaxies are not stable from a stars lifeting POV. They die, are swallowed up and/or regenerated From their POV with dynamic and frequent regularity.

A fly from its POV lives a long a fulfilling lifetime in only 15-25 days. Whose to say that from another, 80 years is a long time. Or even 10,000 years. So, just a different understanding of time makes all of our observations suspect. Even those you listed. Who is to say that everything we have or will experience is happening simultaneously. That makes all measured velocities over time, irrelevant for example. So then, your list is less important then position of the observer.

Yes, that is obvious. I was referring to the the actual ability to form, for example, molecules. If the fine structure constant were significantly smaller, atomic forces may be too weak to hold molecules together. Or if it is larger, molecular forces may be such that molecules, are too rigid. For example silicon is above carbon in the periodic table, also with four valence electrons, but there is not silicon based life forms because the molecular forces are stronger. A similar argument holds with stars and the strong force.

Given what we know right now, absolutely. But with no exceptions, over time there are major changes in the way we view our world(s) and the physics we use to understand it. The biggest mistake science can ever make, is to sit back and think we have explained anything completely .

That is certainly true. Bohr's Correspondence Principle covered that many decades ago.
It was generalized to physics of the future by the Generalized Correspondence Principle. See section 7 in:

Bohr’s Correspondence Principle (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

.


.

 

[Dagosa]

Of course. That is all very well known.

Yes, that is obvious. I was referring to the the actual ability to form, for example, molecules. If the fine structure constant were significantly smaller, atomic forces may be too weak to hold molecules together. Or if it is larger, molecular forces may be such that molecules, are too rigid. For example silicon is above carbon in the periodic table, also with four valence electrons, but there is not silicon based life forms because the molecular forces are stronger. A similar argument holds with stars and the strong force.

That is certainly true. Bohr's Correspondence Principle covered that many decades ago.
It was generalized to physics of the future by the Generalized Correspondence Principle. See section 7 in:

Bohr’s Correspondence Principle (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

.


.

Yup
the physics on the molecular level differ from that on the atomic level. it’s that simple but hard to understand. We don’t know what exists in a universe when for life forms is not based on carbon but some other element. We don’t now because we don’t have enough information. That’s science. The two universes could coexists. We’re not there. But we do speculate bout worm holes for space travel as a way of going from one time/distance to another. I like the movie “contact” in a story written by Carl Sagan for that reason. It actually makes more sense for space travel then any another possibility.

Its a perfect example of how dramatic changes in physics is MORE LIKELY then small ones as we learn more.
So really,I’m not disagreeing so much as I think there is much more to our universe then knowing a few basic relationships. We are just as far away from the answers as we were thousands of years ago when mah thought a GOD was responsible for everything…..really, that may be true. We’ll never know it all. Even the aliens in ”contact” knew little, only slightly more then us and they could transport themselves anywhere and read our minds. So really, they are GODs to anyone who thinks we are class to the answers. The aren’t and never will be. The more we know, the less we realize we know.

 

[james bond]

I guess the notion of justice / injustice defeats the purpose of the eternal sacrifice... that sacrifice is for sins against God (as per Christian theology) but what about man against man??? Who pays the price and who gets rewards??

That was the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority.

My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

>>It just doesn't back them up with any authority.<<

You still don't get it and never will like I said. How much of a higher authority can you get than God? It's His words in the Bible and we NT people found out science backs up His words.

Humans vs. humans are taken care of by commandments 6-to-10 of the Ten Commandments. Do you need for me to repeat them for you?

>>My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.<<

What do you mean by safety net? For the atheists and unforgiven? I think you're getting it if it is to "a cold and unmovable truth." There is no safety net, but I won't be there to witness it. You can witness me without the safety net though.

 

[Dagosa]

>>It just doesn't back them up with any authority.<<

You still don't get it and never will like I said. How much of a higher authority can you get than God? It's His words in the Bible and we NT people found out science backs up His words.

Humans vs. humans are taken care of by commandments 6-to-10 of the Ten Commandments. Do you need for me to repeat them for you?

>>My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.<<

What do you mean by safety net? For the atheists and unforgiven? I think you're getting it if it is to "a cold and unmovable truth." There is no safety net, but I won't be there to witness it. You can witness me without the safety net though.

Which God are you talking about. Everytime a believer talks about “God”, we are entitled to ask, which one ? Well, which is it ?

 

[abu afak]

Which God are you talking about. Everytime a believer talks about “God”, we are entitled to ask, which one ? Well, which is it ?

That's what I've been saying for years here: "Which/Witch one?"
Because at least 75% of believers are wrong even if one is right.

Then what if one shows up and the stars form the word 'Vishnu' in Hindi one night?
The following day there would a disaster.
Mass suicide (or suicide at Mass) among multitudes of other believers.
There whole lives a joke/Lie.

For me, an Atheist OTOH, it would be thrilling to find out there was a god, and I would gladly follow the precepts of what would then be more than a faith/but a truth.
`