Was stumped by a Creationist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's still the "theory" of evolution, or whatever, and it's still modified as evidence supports or contradicts empirical evidence.

No, it's a scientific theory, and it is also a fact. No, the fundamental idea that evolution explains the diversity of species has not been ,in itself, modified.

When you say "only a theory" you reveal a fundamental ignorance of how science works and the idea of what a scientific theory is. The theory of evolution will not ever become a law. Neither will the theory of gravity.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom

No he didn't. A aingliarity has no size, and Hawking knew this. And Hawking only said that the unqualified extrapolation backward based on our physical laws would lead to a singularity, but he always cast doubt on the idea of the existence of singularities. As our knowledge about quantum states imrpoves, scientists are finding solutions to this and to black holes that do not require singularities.

Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?

It has always been there. But, it's not matter that is making the universe expand. It is dark energy.

Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?

Well that is a complicated question indeed with several relevant ideas. For one, the net energy of our universe may simply be zero. In this case, literally no existing energy field was required for our universe to spontaneously begin.

Another idea is that it "came out the other side" from a collapse of a region of space

As you move backward in time, then, the universe contracts. Rewind far enough (about 13.8 billion years), and the entire universe shrinks to the size of a single atom, Hawking said.

Stephen Hawking Says He Knows What Happened Before the Big Bang

So, he did say that, but what's got me more puzzled is, still, the idea that all of this sprang from nothing, or at least, if there was something, where did it come from.

Again, I'm not arguing against you. You may very well be right. What I'm saying is that, again, both theories have to have an amount of faith to believe.

I'm sure my mind is too small to think of it, but, the scientist tells me that before the universe there wa nothing, then there was something. Religion tells me that God created all of this. You have science, they have letters and manuscripts written by people closer to the Biblical times.

About 68% of the world believes in a religion, and a lot of these religions date back thousands of years. Is almost 3/4 of the world wrong?

Also, now they are writing articles saying it's possible the big bang never happened, that now it's a bounce theory or something like that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom

No he didn't. A aingliarity has no size, and Hawking knew this. And Hawking only said that the unqualified extrapolation backward based on our physical laws would lead to a singularity, but he always cast doubt on the idea of the existence of singularities. As our knowledge about quantum states imrpoves, scientists are finding solutions to this and to black holes that do not require singularities.

Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?

It has always been there. But, it's not matter that is making the universe expand. It is dark energy.

Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?

Well that is a complicated question indeed with several relevant ideas. For one, the net energy of our universe may simply be zero. In this case, literally no existing energy field was required for our universe to spontaneously begin.

Another idea is that it "came out the other side" from a collapse of a region of space

Also, for it to have come out from the other side from a collapsed region of space, this has to mean that the universe existed prior to the big bang, no? Again, my simple understanding that the big bang was the beginning of everything. Nothing existed before that.

 

[Olde Europe]

What I'm saying is that, again, both theories have to have an amount of faith to believe.

Oh, for pity's sake.

God created it. That's an article of faith, and religionists of all colors and throughout the times nod in unison. It cannot be verified, it cannot be falsified, and in a debate, based on reason, it is of no value whatsoever.

Now, pay attention, and try to understand. A scientific theory is something different entirely: Scientists ascribe value to a theory insofar as it explains the available evidence, and isn't contradicted by either evidence or other theories deemed valid. It is not "believed"; it's deemed useful to understand the universe, the variety of species, (etc.) and how they came about. They are to be dropped (contrary to what religionists do) as soon as contrary evidence is found that fundamentally undermines it, or it is adapted to get better at explaining evidence that doesn't fit in.

The next time you bring up that claptrap about scientific theories are "believed", I will assume that you are but a lying troll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hawking did not call the singularity the size of an atom. The author made that error and leap. Hawking was correctly saying that we would get to a state of our universe being the size of an atom, should we travel backward in time. But Hawking knew well that a true singularity with infinite denisty must also be infinitely small, which, obviously, an atom is not.

About 68% of the world believes in a religion, and a lot of these religions date back thousands of years. Is almost 3/4 of the world wrong?

Well, unless they all believe in the same religion...then some of them must be wrong, right? And they are probably all wrong. Was 100% of the world wrong, when they thought demons caused disease? Yes.

Also, now they are writing articles saying it's possible the big bang never happened, that now it's a bounce theory or something like that.

Those are interesting theories. But those authors slightly.misrepresent what is meant by 'big bang' in scientific circles. It refers to the period of rapid expansion, which actually still exists on those "bouncing" models.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Also, for it to have come out from the other side from a collapsed region of space, this has to mean that the universe existed prior to the big bang, no?

Well, here you have to delinieate the difference between "our local universe = subverse", which is all we can ever observe, and "all that there is = universe". But yes, that would mean our local universe is not all there is or ever was.

 

[K9Buck]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Everything in this universe was created. The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Everything in this universe was created. The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?

And then, if it's a higher intelligence:

What created the higher intelligence?

What created that which created the higher intelligence?

And so on...

 

[K9Buck]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Everything in this universe was created. The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?

And then, if it's a higher intelligence:

What created the higher intelligence?

What created that which created the higher intelligence?

And so on...

Logic dictates that something had to be first, something that didn't need something else to cause it to exist. Existence is God.

 

[Mousterian]

Everything in this universe was created.

Well, not exactly.
The universe was 'created', and everything else just followed from that.
But to imagine that the universe was created by a nasty old dude with long white hair is to anthropomorphise the event in a truly laughable way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Logic dictates that something had to be first,

No, logic is only a method or a tool. What you mean to say is that a specific argument which you find compelling dictates it. Therefore, it is your subjective choice to accept the conclusion of thaat argument; it's not an objective fact.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What I'm saying is that, again, both theories have to have an amount of faith to believe.

Oh, for pity's sake.

God created it. That's an article of faith, and religionists of all colors and throughout the times nod in unison. It cannot be verified, it cannot be falsified, and in a debate, based on reason, it is of no value whatsoever.

Now, pay attention, and try to understand. A scientific theory is something different entirely: Scientists ascribe value to a theory insofar as it explains the available evidence, and isn't contradicted by either evidence or other theories deemed valid. It is not "believed"; it's deemed useful to understand the universe, the variety of species, (etc.) and how they came about. They are to be dropped (contrary to what religionists do) as soon as contrary evidence is found that fundamentally undermines it, or it is adapted to get better at explaining evidence that doesn't fit in.

The next time you bring up that claptrap about scientific theories are "believed", I will assume that you are but a lying troll.

So, I understand you to be saying that when it comes to science, belief is not part of it. They simply analyze the evidence and create a theory, and from that theory, they take it as fact and everyone is suppose to accept it. Then, as new data comes along, you can discard the old theories and replace them with new ones? Am I understanding it correctly?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, I understand you to be saying that when it comes to science, belief is not part of it.

That is correct. If a person believes something to be true, and the empirical knowledge then shows it to be true....did it matter whether or not the person believed it to be true? Does it matter now? No, on both counts.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hawking did not call the singularity the size of an atom. The author made that error and leap. Hawking was correctly saying that we would get to a state of our universe being the size of an atom, should we travel backward in time. But Hawking knew well that a true singularity with infinite denisty must also be infinitely small, which, obviously, an atom is not.

About 68% of the world believes in a religion, and a lot of these religions date back thousands of years. Is almost 3/4 of the world wrong?

Well, unless they all believe in the same religion...then some of them must be wrong, right? And they are probably all wrong. Was 100% of the world wrong, when they thought demons caused disease? Yes.

Also, now they are writing articles saying it's possible the big bang never happened, that now it's a bounce theory or something like that.

Those are interesting theories. But those authors slightly.misrepresent what is meant by 'big bang' in scientific circles. It refers to the period of rapid expansion, which actually still exists on those "bouncing" models.

I agree with you that, because of the wide array of religions out there, a few people are bound to be wrong, but on the flip side, the majority of them do not believe in a big bang. So I guess you could say nearly 3/4 of the world believes in a god of some type, and that the universe was created by a higher power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the majority of them do not believe in a big bang.

Again...so what? An even larger majority of them don't understand it. You didn't even understand it, until today, when you learned that 'big bang' really only refers to the period of rapid expansion, which is accepted as fact by the scientific community. I didn't understand it either, until I made the effort to learn about it. The smartest man in the world thought our Galaxy was the only Galaxy, in the year 1900.

I guess you could say nearly 3/4 of the world believes in a god of some type, and that the universe was created by a higher power

Okay...but so what? That lends not a shred of truth to the proposition. And it certainly is not evidence at all for it.

 

[K9Buck]

Everything in this universe was created.

Well, not exactly.
The universe was 'created', and everything else just followed from that.
But to imagine that the universe was created by a nasty old dude with long white hair is to anthropomorphise the event in a truly laughable way.

But it's logical to believe that the universe made itself, right? LOL.

 

[K9Buck]

So, I understand you to be saying that when it comes to science, belief is not part of it.

That is correct. If a person believes something to be true, and the empirical knowledge then shows it to be true....did it matter whether or not the person believed it to be true? Does it matter now? No, on both counts.

Yea? What came first that didn't need something else to cause it to exist?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it's logical to believe that the universe made itself, right?

Absolutely, you just pick the right premises, and logic will lead you right to that conclusion. I don't think you understand what "logical" means, in a strict sense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yea? What came first that didn't need something else to cause it to exist?

Maybe nothing came first. Maybe no one thing came first. Maybe one thing came first and had no cause. If you would bother to expend a fraction of the effort you are demanding of everyone else, you could probably come up with these ideas by yourself.

 

[K9Buck]

Thanks for the laughs.

Now, is there anyone else up for reasonable, intelligent discussion?