Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)

Thus, 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.
It is possible that this cancellation will be explained in terms of some future theory, the vacuum energy involves arbitrary constants, which must be carefully adjusted to make the total vacuum energy small enough for life to be possible
(Steven Weinberg "Life in the Universe")

[The extreme fine tuning of the Universe represents] a cataclysm for physicists, and the only way that we know how to make sense of it is through the reviled and despised Anthropic Principle.
(Leonard Susskind, "the Cosmis Landscape")

 

[The Cadet]

You assume this is caused naturally

I personally do, based on the abject failure of supernatural causation to pan out - I make this assumption based on evidence, in other words. Science, on the other hand, does not. Science applies methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. It makes no such assumption, it simply recognizes that it cannot see beyond the natural, and adjusts its views accordingly.

I think it is.
Why?
Because everything is inter-dependent too and there are no laws of nature to account for it.

Just like everything in weather was inter-dependent without any laws of nature to account for it in the past. It's fundamentally the same argument: "we can't explain this, therefore god did it". And it's always always always been premature and wrong. In some cases, such as when applied to disease, disasterously wrong.

Anyway, there is no natural mechanism that can account for DNA writing itself.
Nor is there an explanation for the whole system of procreation.
Abiogenesis is not even to be taken seriously.

So what? Even assuming all of this is true, all that means is that we do not have a conclusive answer. And that's okay. We don't know how everything happened. But we can't get from "we don't know" to "therefore supernatural". Not until we've ruled out all natural explanations. And given our limited knowledge, I'm not even sure how that's possible - we certainly haven't done so yet.

None the less, the Bible derives its credibility from many pieces of evidence, which makes the lot of it at least worth considering.
Mitochondrial Eve for example,

...I'm just going add mitochondrial eve to the list of things you don't understand. Alongside "The Blind Watchmaker", irreducible complexity, methodological naturalism, falsifiability, and science in general.

 

[The Cadet]

Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you, once again, did not read the article in question.

 

[Jimmy D]

Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)

Thus, 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.
It is possible that this cancellation will be explained in terms of some future theory, the vacuum energy involves arbitrary constants, which must be carefully adjusted to make the total vacuum energy small enough for life to be possible
(Steven Weinberg "Life in the Universe")

[The extreme fine tuning of the Universe represents] a cataclysm for physicists, and the only way that we know how to make sense of it is through the reviled and despised Anthropic Principle.
(Leonard Susskind, "the Cosmis Landscape")

Where did those quotes come from?

 

[Loudmouth]

You assume this is caused naturally, but it is the Big Question at hand here.

You assume that it isn't natural, and ignore all of the evidence demonstrating otherwise.

That's the real key here. We have mountains of evidence for evolution, yet you have to run away from this evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)

Thus, 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.
It is possible that this cancellation will be explained in terms of some future theory, the vacuum energy involves arbitrary constants, which must be carefully adjusted to make the total vacuum energy small enough for life to be possible
(Steven Weinberg "Life in the Universe")

[The extreme fine tuning of the Universe represents] a cataclysm for physicists, and the only way that we know how to make sense of it is through the reviled and despised Anthropic Principle.
(Leonard Susskind, "the Cosmis Landscape")

What a surprise... another quote mine. The second paragraph goes on to explain the first. Have you got no shame?


http://nideffer.net/proj/Hawking/early_proto/weinberg.html

Thus, 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. It is possible that this cancellation will be explained in terms of some future theory. So far, in string theory as well as in quantum field theory, the vacuum energy involves arbitrary constants, which must be carefully adjusted to make the total vacuum energy small enough for life to be possible.

All these problems can be solved without supposing that life or consciousness plays any special role in the fundamental laws of nature or initial conditions. It may be that what we now call the constants of nature actually vary from one part of the universe to another. (Here "different parts of the universe" could be understood in various senses. The phrase could, for example, refer to different local expansions arising from episodes of inflation in which the fields pervading the universe took different values or else to the different quantum-mechanical worldtracks that arise in some versions of quantum cosmology.) If this is the case, then it would not be surprising to find that life is possible in some parts of the universe, though perhaps not in most. Naturally, any living beings who evolve to the point where they can measure the constants of nature will always find that these constants have values that allow life to exist. The constants have other values in other parts of the universe, but there is no one there to measure them. (This is one version of what is sometimes called the anthropic principle.) Still, this presumption would not indicate any special role for life in the fundamental laws, any more than the fact that the sun has a planet on which life is possible indicates that life played a role in the origin of the solar system. The fundamental laws would be those that describe the distribution of values of the constants of nature between different parts of the universe, and in these laws life would play no special role.

 

[Hieronymus]

I personally do, based on the abject failure of supernatural causation to pan out

That's just hmm...a gratuitous non sequitur i.m.o. (iḿ not that good at waving debating vocab..)
I mean, it just makes no sense.
Complex systems dependent on complex systems don't work when not completed.
'nuff said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This was explained already on page 2:

I suggest we remember this and not bring it up again and again.

But here's the thing: the theory of evolution SAYS NOTHING about the origins of life on Earth. The theory of evolution is do with how life on Earth developed. Two completely different things.
You are arguing a strawman.

 

[Hieronymus]

What a surprise... another quote mine.

As if you think these guys don't agree with eachother on this.
And they're quotes, not quote mines.

Paragraph 2 also mentions careful adjustment.
This needs a 'careful adjuster' or dead unconscious things performing miracles or a chance of practically zero percent.
Take your pick.
O wait, you already did, because you can not allow a divine foot in the door...

 

[Hieronymus]

But here's the thing: the theory of evolution SAYS NOTHING about the origins of life on Earth.

It claims to explain the origin of species, which makes up the living part of the eco system(s) i.e. life on earth.

You are arguing a strawman.

No, sorry.

 

[Hieronymus]

You assume that it isn't natural, and ignore all of the evidence demonstrating otherwise.

I grew up with the assumed mountains of evidence rhetoric.
So you can forget that angle of attack.

 

[Hieronymus]

Where did those quotes come from?

I says where in small font.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It claims to explain the origin of species, which makes up the living part of the eco system(s) i.e. life on earth.

The origin of species is not the same as the origin of life. Heck, even Darwin thought that life came about on Earth because of God putting it here.

No, sorry.

I'm sorry too, but you are arguing a strawman.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I says where in small font.

He means the source that you yourself got them from.

 

[florida2]

I says where in small font.

Where did you get the quotes from. I'm betting you didn't scour around the original material until you found something quotable. Where did you copy and paste them from?

 

[Hieronymus]

Where did you get the quotes from. I'm betting you didn't scour around the original material until you found something quotable. Where did you copy and paste them from?

Gathered from some video lectures about naturalism and the claims that it's science and creationism isn't.

We have established though that it is assessing irrepeatable history and therefore not science anyway.
But the evidence on which the assessments are based is scientific evidence none the less, but also the lack of evidence for naturalistic models.
So it is dishonest to have emotional objections against creation while claiming science has as good as proven the naturalistic models, the latter being a blatant lie.
This is what is misleading people who are 'on the fence' about it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gathered from some video lectures about naturalism and the claims that it's science and creationism isn't.

That's a load of bull-spit. If you had, you'd have quoted them in their entirety AND given the actual original sources.

 

[Jimmy D]

As if you think these guys don't agree with eachother on this.
And they're quotes, not quote mines.

Paragraph 2 also mentions careful adjustment.
This needs a 'careful adjuster' or dead unconscious things performing miracles or a chance of practically zero percent.
Take your pick.
O wait, you already did, because you can not allow a divine foot in the door...

Agree with each other on what exactly? Do you think that Steven Weinberg is saying that a Deity must have 'adjusted' the universe?

Are you saying you read the original sources and found these quotes or did you get them from another Creationist propaganda site?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you saying you read the original sources and found these quotes or did you get them from another Creationist propaganda site?

I'd bet money on the latter but he just doesn't want to admit to it.

 

[florida2]

Gathered from some video lectures about naturalism and the claims that it's science and creationism isn't.

Which ones?

We have established though that it is assessing irrepeatable history and therefore not science anyway.

So science can never help solve crimes, which are also 'unrepeatable history'?