Creationists: Strut Your Stuff

[JonF]

I don’t think I need to. I don’t need to show that the big bang is impossible any more than you need to prove that creation is impossible.

You have claimed in several of your posts that the Big Bang is impossible, specifically becasue of the missing mass. Are you now saying that it is possible because you can’t prove it impossible?

The missing mass doesn’t point to an incomplete theory. It points to a theory with serious contradictions to the observed universe.

An unsupported assertion. Please provide reasoning as to where the serious contradictions arise. AFAIK, the Big Bang theory does not predict the quantity of matter in the universe, or if it does the range is broad enough to include the “missing matter”.

Nobody predicted that more matter should be created than antimatter. The fact that they are now hypothesizing that this should be so is in response to observational data which is at odds with theory.

Observations strongly indicate (but do not prove) that there is more matter than antimatter. Theories that predict that no matter would exist are incorrect prima facie. Therefore, reasonable scientists modify or create theories that predict that matter exists. There are such theories. They have not yet been verified or falsified. My expectation that some theory will be found is indeed faith, but the fact that no generally accepted theory of that particular facet has yet been found has nothing to do with the reasonableness or scientific validity of the overall theory. You are aware that GR and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible; do you contend that at least one of those theories has no validity?

You are correct that Einstein made a tremendous leap of logic with his theory of relativity which made predictions that could not be confirmed by scientific observation until much later.

I did not say that. His theory was a tremendous leap of logic based on existing observations (although his seminal paper did not refer to experimental evidence)(see Special Relativity), and made predictions that were tested almost immediately (see Relativity).

Nobody has predicted that there would be a big difference between the observed mass of the universe and that predicted by theory.
… A prediction was made. The evidence doesn’t fit.

Ah, we seem to be getting somewhere. You appear to be claiming that the Big Bang theory predicts a particular mass for the universe, and the observations show a different mass. Reference please? I’ve looked and can’t find it …

“Because the universe acts as it does the matter must be there.”

That itself is a false dilemma. A third choice might be that there has been a miscalculation. A fourth might be that we do not fully understand or our current theory is not comprehensive enough to account for it. A fifth might be that the theory is wrong. Your assertion is again based on faith.

You are correct in that there are other possibilities. My assertion is not based on faith; it is based on my estimate of what I think is the most likely answer. It would have been beter if I had hedged my statement appropriately. I do not regard it as given that there is indeed matter that makes up the “missing mass”, but I think it is the most likely explanation. I am ready to change my mind immediately upon seeing convincing evidence, and there’s no faith involved.

this was done! The mass of the universe was inferred. The big problem is that this inference doesn’t come close to agreeing with what is actually observed!

Reference, please?

As for a false dilemma, what false dilemma?

Either the universe occured naturally without the interference or help of a creator (who we’ll call God,) or else God participated in creation.

What third alternative do you suggest?

I have no third alternative to suggest. But you have restated your proposition, and it’s very different. Your original statements were that either the Big Bang is correct or God created the universe. Quotes:

the missing matter … disproves Science’s explanation for the creation of the universe. Since God is the only other explanation we have, then creationism would win by DQ

If under current theory the Universe can not exist as observed then current theory is wrong. Science has failed us, we return to faith. God again by pinfall.

You clearly stated that the choices were the current theory or creation. False dilemma. There may also be non-big-bang or modified-big-bang scientific theories. And maybe even Hoyle’s Continuous Creation will resurge.

[Scylla]

SIngledad:

One more thing. Since you admit that science can’t explain the creation event, but only the evolution of the universe, do you then suggest that both creation and evolution should be taught equally in schools.

(Gotha gotcha gotcha!)

A simple “touche” will suffice.

[JonF]

Since you admit that science can’t explain the creation event, but only the evolution of the universe, do you then suggest that both creation and evolution should be taught equally in school

I doubt that SingleDad will reply as you appear to hope that he will, but here’s my take on it:

We have few scientific theories about what preceded or caused the genesis of our universe. There are theories about that, but they too engender questions about wwhat happened before and why.

There are people, including many scientists, who think that there is no possibility of science addressing the question of what happened before the genesis of our universe, or why that genesis occurred.

I think it is appropriate for the schools to teach that science does not know these things, and may never know these things. IMHO, it is also appropriate to teach that there are people who believe that the cause was a Supreme Being (or IPU or whatever).

I do not believe that it is appropriate for the schools to tell students that there is a scientific theory that a Supreme Being created the universe. That is mostly because I have not yet seen any evidence of such a theory. Your have argued that there are significant problems with current scientific theories (I remain unconvinced, but feel free to have at it again). You have not presented any scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a Supreme Being. I have no problem with you or anyone believing that for unscientific reasons.

I especially do not believe that the schools should teach that “creation science”, referring specifically to how life arose and changed on Earth, is a scientific theory on an equal footing with evolution. We’ve somewhat wandered from the OP, which had to do with that subject.

---

jrf

[Scylla]

Jon:

You do realize I’m simply playing devil’s advocate here, don’t you?

I don’t recall ever stating that the big bang didn’t occur. I’m just trying to punchholes in general cosmological theory by showing it’s inadequacies.

THe missing mass that I’m referring to is not the result of some number implied by the big bang, but that necessary to form and hold galaxies together and to account for the rate at which Galactic objects are receding. In Stephen Hawking’s Black Holes and… (it’s at home,) Hawking makes a big deal about what a problem this to try and reconcile with existing theory. He too feels confident that we eventually will, and so do I for what it’s worth.

The fact that we are working on a whole bunch of different explanations to account for these and other problems is not an argument in favor of scientific theory over creation.

I find my most interesting arguments were the one’s least addressed (to be fair everything was answered and nobody dodged or anything.)

Those were the philosophical objections.

It is interesting that both you and Singledad conceded there was an element of faith in your confidence in science though.

I only wish the creationists were as willing to concede a point when it been reasonably demonstrated.

[Scylla]

BTW I thought it was almost 20 years afterEinstein postulated thtime dilation that it was actually demonstrated.

[Scylla]

Jon:

Once again you formed a scientific hypothesis that your post had not posted. So, you hit submit again. I, on the other hand, armed with the true righteousness of faith (as well as the right hand of Pashley which I store here in my box after taking it from him in the Noah’s ark thread,)

Anyway, using faith I only hit the submit button once.
Once again the superiority of faith over science is demonstrated

[JonF]

Oh, darn, now there’s two posts …

BTW I thought it was almost 20 years afterEinstein postulated thtime dilation that it was actually demonstrated.

.

Maybe. I don’t know when time dilation was first demonstrated. I stated that SR “made predictions that were tested almost immediately”. AFAIK, the first test was of relativistic mass increase of electrons emitted by radioactive decay, tested by seeing how their paths curved in a magnetic field.

---

jrf

[JonF]

The fact that we are working on a whole bunch of different explanations to account for these and other problems is not an argument in favor of scientific theory over creation.

True. Nor is it an argument in favor of “creation science”.

---

jrf

[Gaudere]

So speaks Scylla, whose triple post I cleaned up only yesterday. Screw faith in Gods—have faith in Gaud, and trust the CGI!

[CheapBastid]

Coming in late in the debate

The fact that we are working on a whole bunch of different explanations to account for these and other problems is not an argument in favor of scientific theory over creation.

Disagree whole heartedly. Scientific Theory is subject to adjustment in the face of new information. Creationist beliefs are not.

I therefore am in favor of Scientific Theory.

[Scylla]

Gaudere:

Yes, but yesterday I wasn’t a creationist. Once I got religion … no more triple posts.

Btw, I now retire as counterfeit creationist, and return to the realm of rationality (or what passes for it in me.)

It was fun.

Jon and Singledad:

Thank you for a very interesting debate. You guys were both thoughtful and decidedly fair-minded. Did you see where I was trying to go with my argument?

I don’t know how good a job I did, but it was a pleasure.

There IS something about arguing for creationism that just makes you want to shout "SINNERS!!! REPENT! LISTEN TO ME OR BE DAMNED!

[Satan]

http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-bbs/Forum8/HTML/003301.html

ghoti, who is one of the more intelligent debaters when it comes to these matters over at LBMB, has thrown down a bit of a gauntlet.

I encourage anyone here to answer what the man has to say. If you wish to channel it through me, feel free to post here or e-mail me. All responses will be given due credit from the authors…

---

Yer pal,
Satan

[Gaudere]

Well, for God’s sake, tell 'em where you’re coming from this time, and don’t set up a thread here to kibbitz that they don’t know about…

[Scylla]

Thanks for posting that Satan. I personally don’t wish to, but if somebody did want to respond, would you recomend that they post there themselves, or through you? Should they identify themselves as from the Straight Dope?

I would hate to see a repeat of a previous umnpleasant incident.

[jab1]

A brand-new poster has just asked a question in the “Creationism questions” thread: “Is it true that 30 separate beneficial mutations had to take place simultaneously in order for photosynthesis to evolve?” The new guy’s handle is Grim_Beaker.

Anybody got an answer?

---

When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[Scylla]

I also feel that “intelligent design” is a dead horse.

There is no reason to make the extraordinary claim for Divine interference when well understood mechanisms exist for the evolution of irreducibly complex traits.

[Scylla]

No, its not true.

Endless information on this subject is available by going to alta vista and typing “evolution of photosynthesis.” I got what looked like 20 pages of pertinent links.

That particular process is well-understood, and information is easily available to anybody who bothers to make the search.

[David_B]

Ok, catching up again 'cus real life (and a broken Internet connection) got in the way.

Most of the stuff addressed to me was already answered by others (such as one of ARG’s questions and one of CalifBoomer’s). I’ll try to tackle the rest here, but, again, if I miss something, it’s 'cus I missed it, not 'cus I’m ignoring it, so please feel free to point it out to me.

Satan: I would try to help if I had the time – and if I thought it would do any good. Last time I tried to debate Ghoti, he ignored any reasonable argument. Then he ignored my requests to address what I’d said. Then he waited 'til the thread went away. I don’t wish to put myself through that again unless I have lots of free time on my hands (which I don’t right now).

ARG said:

Ben: David knows that Creationists cannot use science to provide evidence for creation.

*If[/] it were as scientific as some of them claim, they should be able to. If they just believe it on faith, they should stay out of threads like this.

But, he keeps prodding, and poking.

Specifically because they claim to have scientific evidence, or because they claim evolution isn’t scientific, or some such thing. For Pete’s sake, Adam, I’ve explained this to you, what, 5 times now? (Not to mention others doing likewise.) How many times is it gonna take to get through to you?

Sooner or later the other creationists will realize that no matter what “evidence” they provide David, or the other evolutionists, that none of it matters. It’s never enough.

First they have to come up with one thing. Are you claiming they have? If so, where? If not, why did you say that? Are you claiming that I am as unscientific as I say the creationists are? That I would ignore evidence? If so, you’d better apologize now because lying is a sin, you know.

CalifBoomer said:

So, first you develop the idea, then select the appropriate ‘evidence’ you need to support it?

What, are you trying to show that you really have no clue about the scientific method?

You find data. You say, “Hmmm. Interesting.” You come up with a hypothesis based on this data. You check to see if it fits all the data. You find more data and see if it fits. Once you have a lot of data, you have yourself a theory. But you still keep collecting data, trying to see if you ever find any that won’t fit. Because, as John Gribbin notes in concluding a book you should read, Almost Everyone’s Guide to Science, “No matter how beautiful the whole model may be, no matter how naturally it all seems to hang together now, if it disagrees with experiment, then it is wrong.”

---

Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.

[David_B]

Hmmm.

I’m gone for a while. A ton of messages are posted. And still not one shred of evidence from the creationists. Hell, CalifBoomer still couldn’t be bothered to answer the questions I asked of him directly, several times.

Typical.

[Euri]

That is what you get for having unreasonable expectations.

A creationist will never EVER support their assertians. They will hide behind myth, fantasy, and want.

I am ashamed you made a topic like this:P

---

One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious Carl Jung