• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Simply false.

First of all, we don't know if the fundamental constants *can* change or be different. Out current *theories* seem to work with any values of those constants, but we know our current theories are incomplete.

In particular, the Standard Model does not include a quantum theory of gravity, which we *know* is going to be relevant for the very early stages of the universe. it is also quite relevant for the 'cancellation' required for the cosmological constant. In fact, the claim that cancellation is required at all is based on a calculation involving quantum fluctuations and their contribution to the overall energy balance of the universe. It may well be that a *good* quantum theory of gravity simply gives the correct value for the cosmological constant without any required cancellations at all.

Next, the whole basis of the fine tuning arguments is based on the idea that the fundamental constants in the Standard Model are, indeed, fundamental (and not based on some more fundamental process), that they *can* be different, that there is only one universe (a multiverse cleanly circumvents the fine tuning argument), and that the possible values of the constants are random in some sense.

If, however, there is a dynamic the drives those constants to the values they have, the whole fine tuning argument fails. And this is the position taken by a number of theorists in the subject.

Finally, while the fine tuning is often presented as a fine tuning for life, that is very far from being the case. At *best* it is a fine tuning for complexity in the universe. So, nuclei larger than beryllium are actually produced. it is only ego that suggests this is 'for' the production of life. There is no hint of an intention in any of this.

Well that's a ****load of maybe's
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well that's a ****load of maybe's

Well, sorry. Anything prior to the era of nucleosynthesis is speculation at this point. Anything based on 'fine tuning' is speculation at this point. Anything dealing with the beginning of the universe is speculation at this point.

So, yes, MAYBE to all of the current discussion.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Erm, no it doesn't.

Not unless you wish to assert that all physicists and cosmologists accept the strong anthropic principle, which they don't, or that all research in both fields supports it, which it doesn't.

Anthropic was used as an argument against fine tuning, In fact it basically 'it just is' that way is what, I was posting against,,, so where do you think I'm implying the rubbish you wrote
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Except that Weinberg's position is exactly that the universe is NOT fine tuned!

A Designer Universe?

"Looked at more closely, the fine-tuning of the constants of nature here does not seem so fine. We have to consider the reason why the formation of carbon in stars requires the existence of a radioactive state of carbon with an energy not more than 7.7 MeV above the energy of the normal state. The reason is that the carbon nuclei in this state are actually formed in a two-step process: first, two helium nuclei combine to form the unstable nucleus of a beryllium isotope, beryllium 8, which occasionally, before it falls apart, captures another helium nucleus, forming a carbon nucleus in its radioactive state, which then decays into normal carbon. The total energy of the beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus at rest is 7.4 MeV above the energy of the normal state of the carbon nucleus; so if the energy of the radioactive state of carbon were more than 7.7 MeV it could only be formed in a collision of a helium nucleus and a beryllium 8 nucleus if the energy of motion of these two nuclei were at least 0.3 MeV--an energy which is extremely unlikely at the temperatures found in stars.

Thus the crucial thing that affects the production of carbon in stars is not the 7.65 MeV energy of the radioactive state of carbon above its normal state, but the 0.25 MeV energy of the radioactive state, an unstable composite of a beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus, above the energy of those nuclei at rest.2 This energy misses being too high for the production of carbon by a fractional amount of 0.05 MeV/0.25 MeV, or 20 percent, which is not such a close call after all."



Maybe you should ask him about his comments saying specifically that the Beryllium resonance above isn't as fine tuned as many lead you to believe?

The problem with this cancellation is that it depends strongly on quantum gravity, which *everyone* admits we don't understand. And Weinberg notes that it is quite possible there is a deeper reason for this calculation. We simply don't know at this point.
Yes, I understand that this is still in flux as scientists battle back and forth. Yet, when I read above, it still has a hew of fine tuning IMV.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Except it doesn't. Even if we accept the idea of "fine tuning" (which makes several problematic assumptions), how much more "fine tuned" must a god that creates a specific universe be, than that universe by itself?

It doesn't solve the mystery, if anything, it makes it a bigger mystery.

The idea of a multiverse (for example) would solve the problem (if it's even real) and we have exactly the same evidence for that as we have for a god: none.

The existence of unknowns doesn't make made up just-so stories and myths any more believable.
Yes, interpretation of what is seen will vary person to person. But, yes, "how much more "fine tuned" must be God. He is a bigger mystery.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Of course I’ve read Beresheit (Genesis). Jews read it every year as part of the Parshat cycle. And we read it in the original Hebrew too, because that is our national language.

So summarizing your argument, it is it’s “obvious”. [/sarcasm on] Brilliant analysis! Wow, you got a strong argument there![/sarcasm off]
Please note that your error was so gross that it appeared that you either have not read or did not understand Genesis. Genesis does deny reality in quite a few ways. You said this in response to another poster:

"You have misinterpreted the Biblical account. You then have created a straw man argument. You haven’t proved anything."

When we observe how wrong Genesis is from the Adam and Eve account to the order of creation, to the flood myth and the Tower of Babel myth it is hard to see how any of it can be said to reflect reality. If you want to go over why all of these are myths I would be happy to do that. I was just amazed at your apparent lack of knowledge of what Genesis says. Do you think that you can defend your claim?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Please note that your error was so gross that it appeared that you either have not read or did not understand Genesis. Genesis does deny reality in quite a few ways. You said this in response to another poster:

"You have misinterpreted the Biblical account. You then have created a straw man argument. You haven’t proved anything."

When we observe how wrong Genesis is from the Adam and Eve account to the order of creation, to the flood myth and the Tower of Babel myth it is hard to see how any of it can be said to reflect reality. If you want to go over why all of these are myths I would be happy to do that. I was just amazed at your apparent lack of knowledge of what Genesis says. Do you think that you can defend your claim?

the bold ploy of making very snarky assertions
in lieu of data analysis is not very convincing, to
me anyway.
 
I also have more sympathy for creationists, since they've generally had creationism drilled into them by their family and society from long before they had the capacity for rational thought; it can become the status quo for them that they need to expend real energy to question and break away from.

The same can be said for the globe ~ pear ~ ~ oblate spheroid. Indoctrinated since youth before they had any capacity for rational thought.

A lot of what “flat earthers” do say make sense if one were honest with themselves, and open minded ~ The only difference between flat earth and globe are NASA photos and if one has faith in them.
 
Others would have to think that someone is a moron to believe in curved water ~ sideways curved water ~ upside down curved water ~ sideways buildings ~ upside down buildings, upside down aero planes ~ all while the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph along with the atmosphere.
 
All Nasa would have to do to prove “flat earthers” wrong would be to give a live feed for 24hrs of the Earth from space, also would show them all of satellites allegedly in orbit ,or perhaps zoom in through the atmosphere and show an upside down ship cruising around Australia.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The same can be said for the globe ~ pear ~ ~ oblate spheroid. Indoctrinated since youth before they had any capacity for rational thought.

A lot of what “flat earthers” do say make sense if one were honest with themselves, and open minded ~ The only difference between flat earth and globe are NASA photos and if one has faith in them.
Sorry, but there are huge holes in the Flat Earth beliefs. They cannot explain the seasons they cannot explain sunset and sunrise since their claims are self contradicting. They cannot explain how the stars rotate in one direction in the Norther Hemisphere and the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere.

I suppose that one could be "indoctrinated" but if one is at all curious the confirmation of a globe Earth is endless and all that Flat Earthers have are nonsense phrases.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
All Nasa would have to do to prove “flat earthers” wrong would be to give a live feed for 24hrs of the Earth from space, also would show them all of satellites allegedly in orbit ,or perhaps zoom in through the atmosphere and show an upside down ship cruising around Australia.


How could they do that? Seriously do you know how small satellites are compared to the Earth? Flat Earthers would simply deny it.

And if you want to see the curvature of the Earth with the naked eye there are locations where you can do that. Flat Earthers still deny the obvious.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I have been watching some YouTube videos lately where they try to explain to Flat Earthers how they are wrong. The flerfers always end up going through some massive cognitive dissonance and end up denying reality. I have noticed the same behavior from creationists.

Would any creationists care to try to explain how your beliefs are any different from theirs?
I am amazed that it even goes beyond flat earth - saw one video claiming that the sun and the moon are actually within the atmosphere, even below the clouds. And they were aghast that not everyone "understood" this...
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am amazed that it even goes beyond flat earth - saw one video claiming that the sun and the moon are actually within the atmosphere, even below the clouds. And they were aghast that not everyone "understood" this...

As you know creationists do not understand the scientific method or the concept of evidence. Flat Earthers cannot do Middle School math. They simply cannot grasp the idea that a close by Sun could only illuminate small sections of our rather large planet, and that the observed size of the Sun would be constantly changing throughout the day.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
A lot of what “flat earthers” do say make sense if one were honest with themselves,

Ah yes - with your "uncommon sense" please explain it to us all.

I do so want to be 'honest' with myself and accept that the earth is flat even as all observable planets are spherical-ish.

And please do tell me exactly where the sun is such that it can be dark on one half of this pizza pie earth and midday on the other half.

Are you familiar with Occam's razor?


and open minded ~ The only difference between flat earth and globe are NASA photos and if one has faith in them.

LOL!

Yes, that is the ONLY difference.

Please explain gravity on a pizza pie earth.

Can't wait for your totally 'open minded' explanation, complete with supporting evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am trying to remember the name of a video that I saw with an interesting experiment. Countless people around the world measured the direction to the Sun all at the same time. These were then plotted two different ways. With a simulation using a globe Earth and one using a Flat Earth. Guess which one gave consistent results?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top