Evolution or Creationism?

[Oncedeceived]

Actually no. Any more that I believe that the pothole is finely tuned to fit the water that fills it.

Life as we know it is finely tuned to fit the universe in which we find ourselves. A universe with a different set of properties might result in a different form of life. Or no life at all.

You are most certainly welcome to have any opinion you would like to have but if you understand the evidence and the consensus of those in the field you would have to accept that it is fine tuned for life to exist here on earth. The sweet little pond analogy is so simplistic and completely off the mark when faced with the real evidence of fine tuning.

What could be or what might have been is really just an ad hoc possibility with no real examples to show it is even possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't agree that there is evidence showing that our universe is so improbable that it required a designer.

"The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth."
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument

You said the universe was fine tuned as a coffee cup or some such expression. Now I am asking you flat out, do you believe that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of life on this planet?

 

[sfs]

It is fine tuned in the same way that the coffee is finely tuned to fit the inside of the coffee cup.

Well, maybe. The point of a fine-tuning argument in physics is to suggest that there is some kind of process or principle involved that we haven't considered in our theory. For example, if a theory requires the cancellation of arbitrary and independent constants or processes, it suggests that there is some underlying unity between the two that we haven't grasped. The fact that, for the universe to look remotely like it does and for it to support observers, many constants must be exquisitely set to particular values, suggests that the constants may not really be arbitrary, and there may be more to the universe and its laws than we currently understand.

Of course, fine-tuning is merely suggestive, not conclusive, and it doesn't point in any particular direction. An intelligent designer who set the constants is one coherent explanation, but physicists will usually look first for physical explanations: an underlying theory that removes the independence of the constants, or controls how they might vary in the creation of a universe, or a multiplicity of universes with different constants, or the possibility that other interesting universes might be exist if constants or laws were very different than they are (since the fine-tuning argument judges the effect of small perturbations of the existing constants, without attempting to predict the behavior of the universe from first principles for arbitrary constants).

Even if coffee does just conform to the shape of the cup, it's still not unreasonable for the coffee to notice that the cup actually has a rather interesting shape -- perfectly circular in cross section -- and wonder why it might be that way. Maybe the universe is just the way it is, and it's just so happens that it's able to support life, but I don't find that a wholly satisfying answer intellectually.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are most certainly welcome to have any opinion you would like to have but if you understand the evidence and the consensus of those in the field you would have to accept that it is fine tuned for life to exist here on earth. The sweet little pond analogy is so simplistic and completely off the mark when faced with the real evidence of fine tuning.

What could be or what might have been is really just an ad hoc possibility with no real examples to show it is even possible.

And all the evidence so far points only to one inescapable fact. All the what-if's or maybe's or could-haves will never change the what it was and as it is.

And none of that points anywhere but design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And all the evidence so far points only to one inescapable fact. All the what-if's or maybe's or could-haves will never change the what it was and as it is.

And none of that points anywhere but design.

You are singing to the choir my friend.

 

[LACanuck]

You are most certainly welcome to have any opinion you would like to have but if you understand the evidence and the consensus of those in the field you would have to accept that it is fine tuned for life to exist here on earth. The sweet little pond analogy is so simplistic and completely off the mark when faced with the real evidence of fine tuning.

What could be or what might have been is really just an ad hoc possibility with no real examples to show it is even possible.

I'm afraid I *do* understand the evidence. And your definition of 'consensus' is a little off. There are a number of well regarded hypotheses that lead to the possibility of a multiverse. Cosmic inflation, which is actually the consensus view of the time immediately after the big bang, is one of those. And in a multiverse, the probability that there exists a universe that matches the conditions of ours is 1. So I not sure what evidence of fine tuning you have that would contradict cosmic inflation and multiverse.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm afraid I *do* understand the evidence. And your definition of 'consensus' is a little off. There are a number of well regarded hypotheses that lead to the possibility of a multiverse. Cosmic inflation, which is actually the consensus view of the time immediately after the big bang, is one of those. And in a multiverse, the probability that there exists a universe that matches the conditions of ours is 1. So I not sure what evidence of fine tuning you have that would contradict cosmic inflation and multiverse.

A multiverse only pushes the problem back one step and a multiverse is not anymore scientific than God and less convincing IMHO. There are those that do entertain a multiverse but others have shown how it is not the answer to the fine tuning.

 

[AV1611VET]

there is a theory in quantum physics called the uncertainty principle that says the results of some experiments depend on an observer (life) being present.

How do you perform an experiment without an observer (life) present?

If there's no life present, who's doing the experiment?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would have no problem if that was consistent with reality, it isn't.

How is it not consistent with reality?

How different, exactly, would the universe look if our solar system, including all the stars we can see with the naked eye in the night sky, would disappear overnight?

I'll tell you. For all intents and purposes, the universe would look the exact same. On the grand scheme of things, it would be the equivalent of removing a handfull of sand from the biggest beach on the planet.

That's how insignificant we are on cosmic scale...

How is it not consistent with reality that the universe is not here specially for us?

Why do you find it so troublesome that the universe was cosmically meant for us humans to exist?

I don't find it troublesome. Instead, I find that there is no reason at all to consider such. In fact, all I see is evidence of the exact opposite.

The only thing you can offer as "evidence" is the fallacious "fine-tuning" nonsense, which has to be one of the least convincing arguments that's ever been presented to me.

Unlike those who are impressed by that argument, I don't find it particularly shocking that we find ourselves in a universe in which we can exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. We are not designed to live in other parts of the universe.

We also aren't designed for bipedalism, which is why most humans will deal with lower back pains at some point in their life. I just thought I'ld mention it, for comical effect

2. The fact that there are parts of the Earth that are not hospitable does not preclude the magnitude of special needs for carbon life to exist being met by the universe and earth itself.

What else did you expect? That carbon based life would exist in a universe where carbon can't exist? Or on a planet that can't support such life forms?

Why is it so amazing that we exist in an environment in which we actually can exist?
What would your argument be if we would find out that the earth actually can't support carbon based life, and yet here we are anyway?

Would that then prove that no god is involved? No?
So basically... the universe could look like anything, and you'ld still have a god involved, right?

So why bother with the "fine-tuning" nonsense at all?
Why not just say "whatever you find out in science - god dun it all" and be done with it?
Why go through all this trouble to find trick arguments and semantics to win points on a forum, when there is no form a universe could take that would make you NOT involve a god anyway?

If you disagree with this accusation, then I invite you to describe for me a universe in which life exists which would not lead you to conclude "god dun it".

3. There is absolutely no arrogance in giving credit where credit is due.

There is much arrogance in thinking that the entire universe exists especially for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fact that there is always a cause and effect in our universe provides evidence of something outside of the universe for its creation.

This has been explained many times to you.

Causality is a temporal phenomena.
Time is a property of the universe.
No universe = no time.
No time = no causality.

The first "cause" is the creation of the universe itself. There's no "before" that point. Hence there's no "cause" either. Whatever the big bang was, for all intents and purposes it was a causeless event.

If you wish to posit a "before" the universe, then I'ld say you have an extreme burden of proof to meet. The kind that will win you a Nobel prize and a place in the history books, should you succeed in it...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting that it is murder if creatures die but if they die under an evolutionary view it is just a fact of life. Got it. I find it interesting that you view having fuel to drive as something as trivial as going for Mt. Dew rather than supporting your family or warmth or the emergency run to the hospital to save the life of someone you love but whatever...

I find it interesting how you completely ignored his point and then tried to make him seem as some selfish guy who doesn't care about the health of loved ones.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe the universe is just the way it is, and it's just so happens that it's able to support life, but I don't find that a wholly satisfying answer intellectually.

I agree that it's not very satisfying.

However, it's certainly possible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Does the falsification of ToE imply a creator? Why not?

No. You would need evidence for a creator. That hypothesis does not triumph by default.

 

[pshun2404]

No. You would need evidence for a creator. That hypothesis does not triumph by default.

Likewise you need evidence for the lack of one and have none that hypothesis also does not triumph by default.

Paul

 

[bhsmte]

Likewise you need evidence for the lack of one and have none that hypothesis also does not triumph by default.

Paul

Like hitting the "easy" button. If you don't have evidence of your God, tell others to prove your God doesn't exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Likewise you need evidence for the lack of one and have none that hypothesis also does not triumph by default.

Paul

A claim presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence, so no.

 

[AV1611VET]

A claim presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence, so no.

Like the claim that we are all interconnected?

Which means we are to just draw a line between dots on a sheet of paper to fill in the missing links?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Like the claim that we are all interconnected?

Which means we are to just draw a line between dots on a sheet of paper to fill in the missing links?

In what sense 'interconnected'? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[whois]

And none of that points anywhere but design.

it certainly seems that way.
ATP synthase for example.
it's hard to conceive this molecule forming under natural selection pressure.
plants have a similar process but different.

a nice little conundrum wouldn't you say?