A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[KCfromNC]

I am not sure that smaller details like cloths is going to make much of a difference to survival.

If the universe were perfectly suited for us, we wouldn't have to worry about questions of survival at all.

The fine tuned values have already been shown to cause problems if different.

I agree, but that's neither here nor there. The question, which you seem to be ignoring, is how do you know they could be any different. And if so, how different can they be.

The ratios were formed naturally which means they were not preset and could have fell at any value.

That's not a reasonable conclusion. First off, I have no idea what formed naturally is supposed to mean without a natural universe existing. Second, we know of many natural processes where the outcomes are in fact bounded. So basically, I have to ignore reality to agree with you.

If they couldn't then you would have to say they were pre determined which is more about design than anything.

Nope. Lots of natural processes are deterministic with nary a magical designer god in sight.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I usually ask people is why the Universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather egocentric to think that even if the universe were created that it was created for us. For all we know, we are the mold growing on the French fry that fell under the refrigerator, thinking all the while how the whole kitchen was designed just for us. Perhaps the universe was designed to produce the Crab Nebula, and we were an unintended consequence.

 

[stevevw]

If the universe were perfectly suited for us, we wouldn't have to worry about questions of survival at all.

Its all about the creation of life and how our planet is just right for that life to exist. What happens afterwards is really up to other conditions. Who knows what will happen in the future but I would say that a lot of it has to do with us and how we teat the planet. But all things will come to an end and thats how things go. The just right conditions to host life doesn't mean it will last forever, unfortunately things deteriorate.

I agree, but that's neither here nor there. The question, which you seem to be ignoring, is how do you know they could be any different. And if so, how different can they be.

The conditions can be different because thats what science states as being a natural condition is. It states that the universe came about by a naturalistic process that was subject to random conditions. That is how a naturalistic process works. If your going to say that there could not have been any other state for our universe to end up in then that would mean it was pre designed to go that way. Then your just supporting design more than anything else.

That's not a reasonable conclusion. First off, I have no idea what formed naturally is supposed to mean without a natural universe existing. Second, we know of many natural processes where the outcomes are in fact bounded. So basically, I have to ignore reality to agree with you.

Not when it comes to the 100s of physical conditions that would make up our existence and life. Are you saying that all these were set in place before they happened. You would be agreeing with fine tuning then.

Nope. Lots of natural processes are deterministic with nary a magical designer god in sight.

Not 100s in one go. I think your drawing a long bow here. Thats trying to have your cake and eat it as well. Those natural conditions are limited and are still subject to many variations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Its easy to understand. We all know that a natural cause is based on random causes and effects and isn't designed. So the the results will be sporadic and hit and miss. So there won't by too many patterns, or specific conditions that have been predetermined by some controlling agent.

No, that is not accurate. I have corrected this misconception of yours on countless occasions. You simply will not listen, so engaging in this conversation with you is pointless.

 

[stevevw]

No, that is not accurate. I have corrected this misconception of yours on countless occasions. You simply will not listen, so engaging in this conversation with you is pointless.

So whats the difference between design and a natural process. Are you saying that the 100s of physical constants that allow our universe and life to exist are pre set and pre determined.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So are you saying that the 100s of physical constants that allow our universe and life to exist are pre set and pre determined.

Before answering that, could you tell me what exactly is wrong with your previous comment (i.e., about natural processes being random, sporadic, hit and miss, etc)? I've already explained this point on several occasions, and I'm not convinced you've even bothered to listen.

 

[KCfromNC]

Its all about the creation of life and how our planet is just right for that life to exist.

At least you're retreating from the universe being perfect for us to a more reasonable claim that life is possible on earth. And it is no real surprise that the life which evolved to live on this planet is able to live on this planet. Anything other outcome would be evidence of something strange going on.

The conditions can be different because thats what science states as being a natural condition is.

Citation needed.

It states that the universe came about by a naturalistic process that was subject to random conditions. That is how a naturalistic process works. If your going to say that there could not have been any other state for our universe to end up in then that would mean it was pre designed to go that way.

Deterministic processes don't require a designer. I drop a book. It falls to the floor every time. No magical being is pushing it to the floor.

Not when it comes to the 100s of physical conditions that would make up our existence and life. Are you saying that all these were set in place before they happened. You would be agreeing with fine tuning then.

How about you write what you're going to write and I'll do the same? I'd let you write my posts for me, but you don't seem to be very good at guessing what I would actually write.

 

[KCfromNC]

So whats the difference between design and a natural process.

Design as we know it requires a conscious decision and actions by humans or sometimes other animals, depending on who you ask. It is a subset of the group natural processes, which is pretty much anything which happens in the universe.

You'll have to explain how you define and test for these conditions in a time and place before the universe existed if you want to be taken seriously. I see any use of them in that kind of scenario as misleading at best.

 

[stevevw]

At least you're retreating from the universe being perfect for us to a more reasonable claim that life is possible on earth. And it is no real surprise that the life which evolved to live on this planet is able to live on this planet. Anything other outcome would be evidence of something strange going on.

I never intended to make out that all the universe was perfect for life. The earth so far is the only place perfect for life that we have found. I was saying that the universe itself is fine tuned to be here in the first place and that from that life was possible in the only place within that universe being planet earth.

Citation needed.

havnt you been reading the links I have posted. If scientists say that if we change the current ratio of our physical constants such as the The strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry. Or other constants of which there are around 140 for life such as the Ratio of Electrons: protons 1:10/37, the Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10/40. They will have an effect on the way the physics would develop which normally means things get out of balance to the point where no life can develop.

Now I am not making these ratios up and they are calculated by the science. Those ratios need to be the way they are otherwise well we have no life. I have already posted evidence for this from famous scientists who state this over and over again. I cant see how you would want another citations. Its like your making me jump through hoops just to prove something I have already posted evidence for.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of CambridgeUniversity Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Deterministic processes don't require a designer. I drop a book. It falls to the floor every time. No magical being is pushing it to the floor.

Yes but the laws that make that book fall to the floor, where did they come from. How is it that the ratio of that along with whatever the other force that works with gravity which they happen to call Dark energy keeps everything in place in the universe. The ratios of this is so finely tuned down to the 120th decimal that one little change would cause everything to fly apart and smash into each other. How did these forces, laws come about and how did they just happen to fall into the perfect range to keep everything static.

Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in high energy physics, Atheist) “…does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning. The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.” If not: “the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.”

How about you write what you're going to write and I'll do the same? I'd let you write my posts for me, but you don't seem to be very good at guessing what I would actually write.

I am trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the fine tuning of the universe was deterministic. Some things in nature have the appearance of design as dawkins said. But that doesn't explain how they come about. All you may be seeing is the results of design. Like with your example of the falling book. It can be predictable where the book will fall. You can think that this is showing a determined result in nature. But all you are doing is describing what happens in an event. It doesn't say anything about why that can happen and how it came about in the first place. Where did the laws for that gravity come from. Did they just fall out of the sky. Did they just appear out of thin air. Where do all the laws of physics and nature come from which may give everything the appearance of design.

 

[stevevw]

Design as we know it requires a conscious decision and actions by humans or sometimes other animals, depending on who you ask. It is a subset of the group natural processes, which is pretty much anything which happens in the universe.

You'll have to explain how you define and test for these conditions in a time and place before the universe existed if you want to be taken seriously. I see any use of them in that kind of scenario as misleading at best.

So if we see a bunch or rocks banked up in a stream we may think they are randomly put there through the river washing them into that place. But if we see a pile of rocks neatly stacked on top of each other to form a wall or are neatly place one on top of the other to make a totem like structure we would expect that someone had designed that. So design has purpose. So nature can have some aspects of design but there is no foreseeable direction or purpose.

Doesn't science say that the universe started with random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum. Then the big bang happened and as we see with the background radiation from the big bang it dispersed energy all over the place. I understand it was an expansion but that is still a random dispersion of energy which eventually cooled and became matter. So from this random event we ended up with very precise parameters which allow life. If the event was random doesn't that say that there could have been more than one possibility. Not 3 possibilities or 10 possibilities but many. In fact a popular scientific theory to deal with the fine tuning is multiverses. Multiverse say that there could be billions of alternative universes with different physical parameters. So even science acknowledges the fine tuning problem by using a multiverse idea.

 

[stevevw]

Before answering that, could you tell me what exactly is wrong with your previous comment (i.e., about natural processes being random, sporadic, hit and miss, etc)? I've already explained this point on several occasions, and I'm not convinced you've even bothered to listen.

We are talking about how the universe came into being and how it has fine tuned parameters to allow life. The beginning of the universe like the beginning of anything is random according to science. What may be sen in nature now with patterns may be the result of laws and physics that had to begin and then dictate everything. Where did those laws and physics come from. Were they the result of a random event. If so why and how are they so right to make everything work so well and appear designed as Dawkins said. The appearance of design only deals with what is seen and doesn't explain with verifiable tests how it came about.

For all we know the patterns you see in nature are the results of certain laws that were designed in the first place to govern all life and existence. All people like Dawkins are doing is using the designed or created to describe how the designed and created work. It doesn't tell us how it where it came from.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We are talking about how the universe came into being and how it has fine tuned parameters to allow life. The beginning of the universe like the beginning of anything is random according to science. What may be sen in nature now with patterns may be the result of laws and physics that had to begin and then dictate everything. Where did those laws and physics come from. Were they the result of a random event. If so why and how are they so right to make everything work so well and appear designed as Dawkins said. The appearance of design only deals with what is seen and doesn't explain with verifiable tests how it came about.

For all we know the patterns you see in nature are the results of certain laws that were designed in the first place to govern all life and existence. All people like Dawkins are doing is using the designed or created to describe how the designed and created work. It doesn't tell us how it where it came from.

Please just answer the question, steve.

 

[stevevw]

Please just answer the question, steve.

I did answer the question. It seems to be that you dont accept that answer because it doesn't acknowledge what you want me to say which is not correct anyway. We have had this debate before. Nature has both patterns and a hit and miss process. But the patterns that appear in a naturalistic process have no purpose. they are just a matter of circumstances. The patterns that show design in things come from a deeper, complex information. They are designed for a purpose. There are laws that govern these patterns which have to be there in the first place. What you perceive as a pattern may come from pre existing laws and info.

 

[stevevw]

Just like a fine tuned universe speaks of having pre existing parameters built in to determine an end result so can life itself. The laws of physics are the governing forces which guide our physical world. The laws of nature are the same and they guide living things. But in both these laws were there in the beginning and were not a product of blind chance. You can use nature as an example for how it can produce patterns ect. But all this is determined by the information and laws that are there in the first place. So in evolution when it claims that new info that can build new complex living things is created through natural selection this has no verifiable evidence. It is the drawing upon existing info that allows creatures to gain new genetic variance.

The eye for example is far to complex with billions of nerve endings that need to meet up with billions of neurons in the brain. They cannot be formed by a blind and random process. Natural selection could not select billions of nerve endings to match up with billions of neurons in a trial and error process. So that info had to be there in the first place. Evolution cannot explain how complex life can come about through random mutations and natural selection. Its just a belief that has been promoted to try and explain life. Darwin wasn't even aware of the complexity of genetics when he made the theory. So he was making it with limited knowledge which was vital to be able to know what was involved with a living thing. It was all about observation and not verifiable testing.

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law

Before the Darwinian revolution many biologists considered organic forms to be determined by natural law like atoms or crystals and therefore necessary, intrinsic and immutable features of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. The search for the natural determinants of organic form the celebrated "Laws of Form" - -was seen as one of the major tasks of biology. After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I did answer the question. It seems to be that you dont accept that answer because it doesn't acknowledge what you want me to say which is not correct anyway. We have had this debate before. Nature has both patterns and a hit and miss process. But the patterns that appear in a naturalistic process have no purpose. they are just a matter of circumstances. The patterns that show design in things come from a deeper, complex information. They are designed for a purpose. There are laws that govern these patterns which have to be there in the first place. What you perceive as a pattern may come from pre existing laws and info.

Yes, we have discussed this before, and it's clear that you weren't listening to a thing I said. That's why it's pointless discussing these matters with you.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, we have discussed this before, and it's clear that you weren't listening to a thing I said. That's why it's pointless discussing these matters with you.

AS I said last time and as I say again I did here what you had to say but I disagreed with that. What you cant seem to understand is the difference between someone disagreeing with you and not listening. You seem to register disagreeing as not listening. I understand that you believe that nature can also have patterns and appear designed. I just disagree with the extent you read into that. You give more creative power than it has and there is no verifiable explanation as to how what appears as design got there.

But it also seems you can avoid answering my question still. Are you saying that the creation of the universe came from pre determined physics or was it a random event.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

AS I said last time and as I say again I did here what you had to say but I disagreed with that.

You can't even tell me what it is that I said. That shows you weren't listening.

What you cant seem to understand is the difference between someone disagreeing with you and not listening You seem to register disagreeing as not listening.

You don't even know what you were disagreeing with!

But it also seems you can avoid answering my question still. Are you saying that the creation of the universe came from pre determined physics or was it a random event.

I'm not engaging in this discussion with you. You don't listen. You are by the far the worst person to talk to on this forum.

 

[stevevw]

You can't even tell me what it is that I said. That shows you weren't listening.

Ive said it twice already so whos not listening. You were saying that nature can have patterns in it. ie convergent evolution seems to repeat similar patterns of design in different and unrelated creatures. It can have complexity and not be designed. You used various examples such as snow flakes have intricate patterns and they are claimed to be from a naturalistic process. I think we may have discussed irreducible complexity as well such as the flagellum or maybe the eye.

You don't even know what you were disagreeing with!

I was disagreeing that what you read as patterns comes from a random process. As with the snowflake it has underlying physics that cause the patterns which are the water molecules which will always form hexagonal shapes. The only random part of snowflakes comes from the circumstances they may be in such as how cold that cloud may be, what pollution is in the air, what temperatures are as they fall which will vary their shapes. But the basic shape is down to pre existing physics. We disagreed on convergent evolution as being a pattern of nature/evolution. I said there was to much convergent evolution to be true and that not all of it was due to evolution.

In fact it comes down to whether you believe that random mutations and natural selection have that amount of ability. I disagreed that natural selection can create that amount of variation and repeat designs in animals. I said that it is more likely that there is a pre existing info that can be tapped into or shared that is the basis for how we see common traits in animals. That there is not enough explanation and evidence to show that evolution can account for that amount of variation and similar features in unrelated creature. The tree of life is one example which shows a lot of incongruence.

I also disagreed that nature can produce such complex things from random mutations and natural selection. You stated that evolution isn't random. I said that to much ability is given to natural selection and that mutations are still the first line of how variations are made. So its still a non directed process unlike design.

I'm not engaging in this discussion with you. You don't listen. You are by the far the worst person to talk to on this forum.

Fair enough. But from memory this is what happened last time and the time before that. You keep stepping in and making comments and disagreeing and giving little hints about what I have done wrong. It gradually gets to a point where I have to address what you are trying to imply but thats when you normally say you dont want to get involved. So why say something in the first place. The trouble is I think from the first time we debated you have just made comments from the sidelines sinse then and never engaged in anything new or elaborated on anythings so we could clarify things. So I find this more frustrating as its like the debate you have when your not having a debate type situation.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ive said it twice already so whos not listening. You were saying that nature can have patterns in it.

If that's all you think I said, then you weren't listening.

ie convergent evolution seems to repeat similar patterns of design in different and unrelated creatures. It can have complexity and not be designed. You used various examples such as snow flakes have intricate patterns and they are claimed to be from a naturalistic process. I think we may have discussed irreducible complexity as well such as the flagellum or maybe the eye.

Yes, the example of the snowflake was given.

I was disagreeing that what you read as patterns comes from a random process.

I never said it came from a random process.

As with the snowflake it has underlying physics that cause the patterns which are the water molecules which will always form hexagonal shapes. The only random part of snowflakes comes from the circumstances they may be in such as how cold that cloud may be, what pollution is in the air, what temperatures are as they fall which will vary their shapes. But the basic shape is down to pre existing physics.

A moot point given that I never claimed it was due to a random process. 'Natural' is not equivalent to 'random'.

We disagreed on convergent evolution as being a pattern of nature/evolution. I said there was to much convergent evolution to be true and that not all of it was due to evolution.

Yeah, you were very confused, and it seems you still are. But you aren't even aware of it.

Fair enough. But from memory this is what happened last time and the time before that. You keep stepping in and making comments and disagreeing and giving little hints about what I have done wrong. It gradually gets to a point where I have to address what you are trying to imply but thats when you normally say you dont want to get involved. So why say something in the first place. The trouble is I think from the first time we debated you have just made comments from the sidelines sinse then and never engaged in anything new or elaborated on anythings so we could clarify things. So I find this more frustrating as its like the debate you have when your not having a debate type situation.

Given your tendency to misconstrue what others have said, it's simply not worth the effort. You don't listen, so a productive discussion is not possible.

 

[stevevw]

If that's all you think I said, then you weren't listening.

Its been a while I will have to go back and refresh my mind. I debate with many people. You seem to be more preoccupied with what I have said or what you have said and what I haven't remember. So this is obviously in your mind at the moment more than I.

Yes, the example of the snowflake was given.

And.

I never said it came from a random process.

From memory you used this as an example for nature being able to make design or complexity. If it is not from a random process then what is it from. If it is pre determined then what makes it that. How doe this example support your case and why did you use it.

A moot point given that I never claimed it was due to a random process. 'Natural' is not equivalent to 'random'.

But as I said natural can also incorporate random processes.

Yeah, you were very confused, and it seems you still are. But you aren't even aware of it.

See this is where I disagreed with you and you determined that I was either not listening or confused. Did it ever occur to you that I just disagreed and that was it. You have to accept that people will disagree with you and see things differently. I did post support for why I disagreed. So maybe you didn't accept that. I accept what your view is without attaching any qualification to it.

Given your tendency to misconstrue what others have said, it's simply not worth the effort. You don't listen, so a productive discussion is not possible.

So I misconstrue things. misconstruing something means the person has listened but they have misinterpreted what is said. So thats not a case of not listening like how you have been claiming. Maybe its a case that I interpret the evidence differently to you and thats what you are seeing. As with convergent evolution. You claimed it had a particular interpretation. I disagreed and had a different interpretation based on what I believed the evidence was showing. But because I have this different view doesn't mean I am misconstruing things.