Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Physicists claim that, do you feel you have some information that they lack?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science
- Thread starter paul becke
- Start date
- Status
Physicists claim that, do you feel you have some information that they lack?
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I doubt all physicists agree with your presented position, but even if they did, logically since we don't know to exactly what extent the existence of life, intelligent or otherwise, is flexible in regards to physics, it is entirely possible that some form of intelligent life could exist within many different physics parameters. There is just no current way of eliminating or proving that possibility
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
No, you are mistaken. If you are saying that other life forms "might" be able to exist in a different universe then you are saying something different as to what this universe requires for intelligent life. The consensus is that intelligent life as we know it could not have occurred in our universe if the constants were different.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- not every physics constant is even relevant to the existence of life. Some properties of the universe could be completely eliminated and we would have a rough time even noticing it
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
How do you know? Even if you are correct, the ones that are relevant are required to be as they are.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Yes, except even certain properties, such as how dense water in the form of ice compared to as a liquid, still have some wiggle room. Life doesn't require any absolute values
Upvote
0
Physicists claim that the universe is not designed. Do you feel you have evidence that they don't?
Upvote
0
Or if the Milky Way galaxy would have been possible, or if supermassive black holes would have been possible, or if Mt. Fuji would have been possible . . . the list goes on.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Some physicists claim that the universe is not design, some do.
I do feel I have evidence that non-believers do not. Like I said, each make conclusions based on their worldview.
Upvote
0
Paul Davies does.
"Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness."--Paul Davies
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian
There is wiggle room for life according to Davies.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
On the fact that changing the density of water as a liquid by a factor of a .00000000000001% increase all by itself and no other properties of water wouldn't change anything essential significantly enough to matter. The most important part is for water to be denser as a liquid than as a solid, and that it remains a liquid at certain temperatures, in regards to density and all.
Upvote
0
The top scientists do not, as we have shown over and over.
Then it isn't objective evidence.
We use the evidence.
Upvote
0
Yes, the same universe we find life. The same constants were required for both, and yet you say that the universe was not fine tuned for the Face on Mars. Why?
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. Now, it happens that to meet these various requirements, certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe, so stringent in fact that a biofriendly universe looks like a fix - or 'a put-up job', to use the pithy description of the late British cosmologist Fred Hoyle. It appeared to Hoyle as if a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics. He was right in his impression. On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears, the universe seems to be 'just right' for life, in many intriguing ways. No scientific explanation for the universe can be deemed complete unless it accounts for this appearance of judicious design. Until recently, 'the Goldilocks factor' was almost completely ignored by scientists. Now, that is changing fast. As I shall discuss in the following chapters, science is at last coming to grips with the enigma of why the universe is so uncannily fit for life. The explanation entails understanding how the universe began and evolved into its present form, and knowing what matter is made of and how it is shaped and structured by the different forces of nature. Above all, it requires us to probe the very nature of physical laws.
"The Goldilocks Enigma" Paul Davies.
Upvote
0
That top scientists reject ID because of a lack of evidence.
You said it was evidence which implies it is objective when discussing science. This is another example of your dishonest behavior. You twist and twist words.
As you admit, you don't have any.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
