Fine tuning of the Universe

[KCfromNC]

Bump...

And bump again. Guess is it easier to agree with the one poster who happens to agree with him rather than answer legitimate questions from people who don't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And bump again. Guess is it easier to agree with the one poster who happens to agree with him rather than answer legitimate questions from people who don't.

I notice this a lot. Questions about the foundations of an argument ignored in favour of incidentals and side-issues.

 

[Vaccine]

They are horrified because of their extreme aversion to anything that indicates an ID.

How true!

 

[KCfromNC]

I notice this a lot. Questions about the foundations of an argument ignored in favour of incidentals and side-issues.

Don't forget pretending to have answered the question at some point earlier in the thread but not being able to explain where. And the mutual back-patting between the two people on a thread who happen to agree with the OP (this includes the OP).

 

[bhsmte]

Don't forget pretending to have answered the question at some point earlier in the thread but not being able to explain where. And the mutual back-patting between the two people on a thread who happen to agree with the OP (this includes the OP).

All those rudimentary defense mechanisms kicking in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How true!

No, not at all. Do you realize that relying on the "fine tuning" argument refutes all sorts of Genesis myths?

Let's say that a god formed a fine tuned universe 13.82 billion years ago. That will end up in throwing out the Adam and Eve story and the Noah's Ark story for just two.

Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, not at all. Do you realize that relying on the "fine tuning" argument refutes all sorts of Genesis myths?

Let's say that a god formed a fine tuned universe 13.82 billion years ago. That will end up in throwing out the Adam and Eve story and the Noah's Ark story for just two.

Seems to me that an omnipotent creator god would have no need to 'fine tune' its creation... and from the anatomy and physiology (and history) of life on Earth (including humans) to the scattered features of the observable universe, it really doesn't give the impression of being intelligently designed - unless the intelligent designer was very drunk at the time.

 

[Radrook]

No, not at all. Do you realize that relying on the "fine tuning" argument refutes all sorts of Genesis myths?

Let's say that a god formed a fine tuned universe 13.82 billion years ago. That will end up in throwing out the Adam and Eve story and the Noah's Ark story for just two.

Are you sure that you want to do that?

JWs accept the age of the universe as billions of years and accept both the Eden and the Flood accounts as historical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

JWs accept the age of the universe as billions of years and accept both the Eden and the Flood accounts as historical.

So what? That only demonstrates that they cannot see the consequences of those beliefs. Didn't you learn anything from our flood discussion?

 

[Radrook]

So what? That only demonstrates that they cannot see the consequences of those beliefs. Didn't you learn anything from our flood discussion?

I am referring to the billions of years involved in the universe's creation. They have no difficulty reconciling it with the Genesis creation account.

BTW
Yes, from the flood discussion I learned certain valuable things. What I did not learn is that JWs are unable to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the concept of a very old universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am referring to the billions of years involved in the universe's creation. They have no difficulty reconciling it with the Genesis creation account.

If they believe in the Adam and Eve myth, and I am fairly sure that they do, then they have no understanding of science. But I am not a JW and I don't think that you are one either. You are not in a very good position to state what they believe.

BTW
Yes, from the flood discussion I learned certain valuable things. What I did not learn is that JWs are unable to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the concept of a very old universe.

So nothing in other words. That is a pity.

 

[Radrook]

If they believe in the Adam and Eve myth, and I am fairly sure that they do, then they have no understanding of science. But I am not a JW and I don't think that you are one either. You are not in a very good position to state what they believe.



So nothing in other words. That is a pity.

Yes I am in a position to know what JWs believe because I was a JW for many years and am thoroughly familiar with their doctrinal views. In fact I was a Bible study conductor at one point and in charge of leading a group of 12 sisters in the field service ministry.

BTW
I consider your mindless, billion happy accidents, abiogenesis idea a hilarious myth.
So I guess the opinions are mutual. Also, there are scientists who understand science and consider your idea of abiogenesis as silly and do believe in the Genesis account as historical. So your premise of scientific ignorance that you constantly and monotonously drone like a mantra in most of your responses is seriously flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I am in a position to know what JWs believe because I was a JW for many years and am thoroughly familiar with their doctrinal views. In fact I was a Bible study conductor at one point and in charge of leading a group of 12 sisters in the field service ministry.

And yet you have no clue as to why they were wrong. They still accept the mythical parts of Genesis along with their beliefs. That only makes them a little less wrong than YEC's.

BTW
I consider your mindless, billion happy accidents, abiogenesis idea a hilarious myth.

And that is your problem. The only people that claim they were "happy accidents" are those that have no clue at all about abiogenesis. Why would you make such an assumption? No one that supports the idea uses that claim.

In fact I know that I gave links to you on abiogenesis that explained what was known about it now, and there were no such claims in that. You have been corrected on this and yet you insist on making the same error. That makes it look like you are lying. I hope that is not the case. But it does not bode well for you either way.

So I guess the opinions are mutual. Also, there are scientists who understand science and consider your idea of abiogenesis as silly and do believe in the Genesis account as historical.

There really aren't. They have kept themselves ignorant of the advances in this science so you really cannot make this claim correctly.

So your premise of scientific ignorance that you constantly and monotonously drone like a mantra in most of your responses is seriously flawed.

You have yet to show that this is the case and for you you appear to be trying to keep yourself ignorant. You keep repeating basic errors even after being corrected and given links that explain your errors to you. Lastly you should not make personal attacks against others. That is against the rules here. You can learn. I am not saying that you are unintelligent, but sadly like most creationists you seem to be affected by cognitive dissonance in this matter. Since reality attacks your deeply held personal beliefs you have to reject reality.

 

[Radrook]

Another video in addition to the OPED one that deals with the subject:

 

[bhsmte]

Another video in addition to the OPED one that deals with the subject:

Oh goodie, another video.

Does this video provide a scientific definition of ID? Does it describe the falsifiable test, to determine if ID is present or not?

 

[Radrook]

How true!

Sometimes some atheists change their mind when they realize that the evidence is indeed overwhelming.
There is a God, leading atheist concludes

 

[KCfromNC]

Sometimes some atheists change their mind when they realize that the evidence is indeed overwhelming.
There is a God, leading atheist concludes

So you've converted to deism based on this? If the fact that some random person converted to a religion doesn't get you to switch to it why would you expect it to be convincing to anyone else?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sometimes some atheists change their mind when they realize that the evidence is indeed overwhelming.
There is a God, leading atheist concludes

What about theist scientists who turn atheist? Does their opinion matter as well?

Anyhow.... how about that method of determining if "design" is present in a certain thing or process? Have you gotten around to sharing that already?

I lost count how many times I've asked now...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes some atheists change their mind when they realize that the evidence is indeed overwhelming.
There is a God, leading atheist concludes

Flew was getting very old and death is scary when it is imminent.

 

[Radrook]

Seems to me that an omnipotent creator god would have no need to 'fine tune' its creation... and from the anatomy and physiology (and history) of life on Earth (including humans) to the scattered features of the observable universe, it really doesn't give the impression of being intelligently designed - unless the intelligent designer was very drunk at the time.

From a theological Christian viewpoint the condition of the present universe, although still sufficiently fine-tuned, is nevertheless understood biblically as an inferior imperfect version from its original form and in need of replacement. That includes mankind which is presently an inferior imperfect version of the original design.