The fine tuning of the universe.

[AirPo]

Do a google search on the word: "evolution" and click on images and EVERYTHING will be someones artwork.

Does it need to be explained that clicking Google "image" will show pictures?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does it need to be explained that clicking Google "image" will show pictures?

The point is that evolutionary theory is a myth that is based on people doing drawing. There is a lack of evidence to back up their drawing.

 

[AirPo]

The point is that evolutionary theory is a myth that is based on people doing drawing. There is a lack of evidence to back up their drawing.

And the point is refuted.

 

[Hoghead1]

It has been a long time sense I have seen anyone involved in a serious in debth discussion. I try to get one going but most most people avoid in debth discussions because it rapidly becomes apparent that evolutionary theory is a myth and a fairy tale with no real science to back it up. Horse evolution is a wonderful example because just about every drawing they come up with is as bogus as can be. Horses did not evolved from small to big the way the art drawing show. They evolved more like this. Evolutionists want to shrug it off that they were and really still are promoting a bogus lie. Because what is really going on is more complicated then what they are ready, willing and able to deal with.

Baloney!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Baloney!

Exactly, evolutionary theory is full of baloney.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK lots of interesting stuff to think about there, however....
Your premise 1 was

All of the information you provided supports a different premise. The rare earth hypothesis suppers the premise that: in our life permitting universe, the frequency with which intelligent life arises is extremely low.
We can get into that hypothesis and what it tells us later if you like but first we have to establish your first premise (or you could rewrite it I guess). So do you have any support for the notion that a life permitting universe is intrinsically ( quick question, what does the word intrinsically add to this statement? ) unlikely?

Not all the information was in regard to just our planet. The second link was in regard to other planets. Intrinsically as in the nature of the universe as rare.

 

[pat34lee]

Don't be silly. When something in the Bible is shown to be false people simply reinterpret the Bible. It has been shown that the Earth is not flat, that the Earth is not fixed in place and everything revolves around it. It has been shown that there was no Adam and Eve, no Noah's Ark, no Exodus.

The list goes on. The fact that you may not know all of the many flaws in the Bible does not mean that they do not exist.

That list is a lie, as I showed on the Exodus from Egypt.
NOTHING in the bible has been proven false through
science, especially archeology.

 

[pat34lee]

adjective, quainter, quaintest.
1.
having an old-fashioned attractiveness or charm; oddly picturesque:
a quaint old house.
2.
strange, peculiar, or unusual in an interesting, pleasing, or amusingway:
a quaint sense of humor.
3.
skillfully or cleverly made.
4.
Obsolete. wise; skilled.

Hint, not 1,3,or 4.

And what are the chances that people who know
you would say the same about you or worse?

 

[joshua 1 9]

It has been shown

Nothing of the sort has been shown. In fact your Pratts have been refuted many times and the thinking that these Pratts are based on has been thoroughly exposed and shown to be unsubstantiated. Your pretty much kicking a dead horse.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What about the great oxygenation event?

You mean that massive rise in oxygen levels a few billion years ago, which whiped out most things alive at that time, as oxygen was toxic to it? And which was likely the result of certain bacteria producing the oxygen?

What about it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is pretty complicated to do an operation. They have their limits in what they are effect at being able to do. People need to realize that. Everything is so specialized now that people only learn how to do their little niche.

It's good to be aware that doctors aren't infallible miracle workers, yes.
However, it's kind of silly to make a point about the obvious.

And it's exceptionally stupid to imply that "therefor, doctors aren't the answer...", because they aren't infallible miracle workers.

Since there don't seem to be any infallible miracle workers, fallible doctors are your best shot at staying alive and healthy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you believe that there is no reason to do science to find out about how something exists but you defend evolution all the time. Why the difference?

That is not at all what I said.

Science, evolution, is idd about explaining how things occur. Which is very usefull.
But we aren't talking about a "how" here.

The question you are asking is not "how does the universe work?".
The question rather is "why does the universe work the way it does?".

 

[Athée]

Not all the information was in regard to just our planet. The second link was in regard to other planets. Intrinsically as in the nature of the universe as rare.

I read through all the links and as you say not all of them dealt only with life on earth. But talking about other planets etc still does not support the premise you are arguing. The hypothesis that these articles suppet is that even in a universe where life is possible, it remains a rare, possibly even exclusive, occurrence. Again this does not help you support first premise that the universe with parameters that allow life is rare and that is the one you need to provide evidence for.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why are you participating in this thread if you do not understand?

I'm asking you to clarify the statements you make.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We can do more than speculate. For instance lets take the abiogenesis question as an example. We don't know how life actually began but scientists know things about what life requires and what needs to be present in the forming of life to create experiments to aid them in learning about how it might have come about. Knowing certain things that would not aid in life's origin and would in fact prohibit it is not speculation but based on what we know about life and its requirements.

It's still just speculation. There might very well turn out to be things that are currently not known, which might give us the idea today that "this and that would prohibit life to exist". And it would be wrong.

For example, life -as it exists today- requires a certain amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to breath to survive. However, in ancient times, such oxygen was actually toxic and the rise of oxygen levels actually triggered one of the first big extinction waves.

Without that knowledge, one would assume that the presence of oxygen is a requirement for life. But it's not. As it turns out, oxygen used to be toxic to that ancient, primitive life.


See, this is the problem when one tries to actually establish conclusions while ignorance reigns.

One can speculate and design tests or experiments to see if the speculation holds up. But more often then not, especially for "hard problems" like the origins of life, let alone of the universe, those speculative models will turn out to be dead wrong.

This is why the "fine tuning argument", when (ab)used as a god-argument, is called a fallacious argument from ignorance.

This is similar to what we have in determining what types of consequences for the universe and life itself would have if the KNOWN measurements/values were tweaked in different ways.

Only on paper.
You can't actually go into the lab and "tweak the values" to see what happens.
You can't even know if tweaking the values is at all possible.
Because ignorance reigns in this subject. We don't know if the values CAN be changed, we don't know if universes with other physical laws CAN exist, etc...

Also, if they can and if there idd is some kind of "multi-verse" with an infinite amount of "universes", then universes such as this one are inevitable as well.

So, as said multiple times, your entire argument is based on speculation and ignorance.

Take .01% smaller or larger in weak force for instance and this would happen and so they know and do not speculate in that way.

It is speculation because, as said, they can't actually go into the lab and change the value to see what will happen. It's not even known if it is actually possible to have other values.

It's speculation. From beginning to end.

If you agree that the phenomena of fine tuning is real and backed by science, then we have our starting point.

A starting point, for what, exactly?

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. A intelligent life supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely.

Why?

2. A powerful and intelligent Creator who wanted such a universe for the purpose of intelligent beings would explain it.

How does an assertion of that sort "explain" anything?

3. So the fact that we have such a universe makes it more likely that there was a powerful and Intelligent Creator to fine tune the universe to produce such beings.

When did you show that such a creator exists at all?

Thoughts?

You're missing a few steps.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Since there don't seem to be any infallible miracle workers, fallible doctors are your best shot at staying alive and healthy.

Some are better then others. Perhaps doctors should be required to tell people how well they did in school. Half of the doctors graduated in the lower half of their class. Still this is the whole point behind the Bible. The Bible is not based on man and man's authority. The Bible is based on God and God's authority. So the same God that created us and the entire universe is the God of the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

When did you show that such a creator exists at all?

Creation is evidence for a Creator. Even we learn about the Creator by our study of Creation.

 

[AirPo]

And what are the chances that people who know
you would say the same about you or worse?

Is the definition of notion also required? Or an English lesson?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I read through all the links and as you say not all of them dealt only with life on earth. But talking about other planets etc still does not support the premise you are arguing. The hypothesis that these articles suppet is that even in a universe where life is possible, it remains a rare, possibly even exclusive, occurrence. Again this does not help you support first premise that the universe with parameters that allow life is rare and that is the one you need to provide evidence for.

Perhaps you can explain why you think this doesn't provide evidence that the universe with parameters that allow life is rare?