Fine tuning of the Universe

[KCfromNC]

Well, your own scientists disagree with you!

As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"seem to"? I smell quote-mining.

Your glaring inability to describe just how your mindless chemicals DECIDE

If the chemicals are mindless then why would anyone expect there to be decisions involved?

 

[Radrook]

"seem to"? I smell quote-mining.



If the chemicals are mindless then why would anyone expect there to be decisions involved?

Never came across that term "quote mining" when I studied how to properly support an argument's thesis statement via supplying quotes from relevant sources. In fact, I aced that course. So your comment comes across as rather peevish.

About chemicals, very true- left to themselves they are incapable of displaying any evidence of a guiding mind.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

About chemicals, very true ...... they are incapable of displaying any evidence of a guiding mind.

Finally we have agreement in writing from you. And I promise I'm not quote mining

Wait for it....... "That's not what I said!"

 

[Radrook]

Finally we have agreement in writing from you. And I promise I'm not quote mining

Wait for it....... "That's not what I said!"

quote mining
The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.
Conservatives have a reputation for quote mining and other ways of taking things out of context.
Urban Dictionary: quote mining

So how is what I quoted out of context?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

quote mining
The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.
Conservatives have a reputation for quote mining and other ways of taking things out of context.
Urban Dictionary: quote mining

So how is what I quoted out of context?

No idea as I haven't read that book. But I suspect there's more to it than the sentences you quoted. Do you consider my quote from you to be in context? Is it a fair reflection of what you said?

 

[Radrook]

H

No idea as I haven't read that book. But I suspect there's more to it than the sentences you quoted. Do you consider my quote from you to be in context? Is it a fair reflection of what you said?

Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.

 

[KCfromNC]

Never came across that term "quote mining" when I studied how to properly support an argument's thesis statement via supplying quotes from relevant sources. In fact, I aced that course. So your comment comes across as rather peevish.

"I've never heard of a term therefore you are wrong"? Uh, OK

About chemicals, very true- left to themselves they are incapable of displaying any evidence of a guiding mind.

Good, you're starting to understand.

 

[KCfromNC]

H
Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.

Because a typical creationist ploy is to only quote certain parts of papers while leaving the important parts out. In this case, the quote included the phrase "seem to". A common rhetorical device is to introduce a topic that seems to be one way only to develop how the appearance isn't accurate after further investigation. Creationists are inclined to leave out that additional explanation in an attempt to confuse "seem to" with "is". e.g. The incomprehensible creationist - the Darwin "eye" quote revisited

This felt like yet another example of that tactic.

 

[bhsmte]

H
Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.

The same way someone else singling out the part of the bible that says; "there is no God".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No idea as I haven't read that book. But I suspect there's more to it than the sentences you quoted...

Your sense of smell is good - there is more to it than the sentences he quoted. Quote mining? you be the judge:

That quote was from the passage where Hawking is examining the strong anthropic principle and stating the argument presented for it. After explaining the weak and strong anthropic principles, and objections to the strong anthropic principle, he later goes on to explain how inflationary theories were developed to explain how the universe came to be the way we see it today (i.e. how to account for the appearance of fine tuning). He eventually arrives at Linde's 'chaotic inflationary model' as one that can produce multiple inflationary regions, and, "One of these regions would become what we now see as the observable universe." (p.132)

He says that although there are many initial (i.e. big bang) states that could give rise to a universe like ours, not all do so, and to discover how it happened to have an appropriate initial configuration, we need a theory of quantum gravity so we can calculate its exact behaviour. We don't yet have such a theory, but we know the requirements for it. Hawking is clearly confident that the appearance of 'fine tuning' is explicable, and goes on to present his 'no boundary' proposal, where the universe is finite in time and space but without boundary, so it's effectively self-existent, it just is. IOW, it doesn't start in time, time starts in it.

It now appears that the 'no boundary' proposal Hawking made back in the 1980's when he wrote the book from which the quotes came ('A Brief History Of Time'), is unlikely to be correct, but there there is now a promising theory of quantum gravity - Loop Quantum Gravity.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

H
Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.

You are not giving any context for what you are quoting. See post from Frumious for that context.

I also only quoted directly from your post. Seems you think chemicals cannot provide evidence for intelligent design. Or did I not paint the whole picture?

 

[Radrook]

You are not giving any context for what you are quoting. See post from Frumious for that context.

I also only quoted directly from your post. Seems you think chemicals cannot provide evidence for intelligent design. Or did I not paint the whole picture?

I never claimed that chemicals do not show evidence of intelligent design.
The quotation from Hawkings is exactly what he said and what the said harmonizes with the thread title that the universe does displays fine tuning. You want me to add the disclaimer that Hawking's is an atheist? That's understandable. OK. Hawkings is an atheist and his comment was in no way meant to be taken as promoting theism.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never claimed that chemicals do not show evidence of intelligent design.

But I quoted you directly. Or are you saying I left something out? That would be quote mining

The quotation from Hawkings is exactly what he said and what the said harmonizes with the thread title that the universe does displays fine tuning.

And what I quoted from you was exactly what you said, too. If you choose to quote certain words out of context it is possible to make them say pretty much anything you want. That's quote mining.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, your own scientists disagree with you!

As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything in that quote that suggests that these values could have been any different.

Nore do I see anything there that allows for probability calculations without making a truckload of assumptions.

Your glaring inability to describe just how your mindless chemicals DECIDE that they need self repair and go about PLANNING and BUIlDING and Meticulously Programming such a molecular repairing device without the agency of mind and for just such a purpose indicates to me that you are very probably incapable of properly evaluating the very process you claim to understand. Just saying.

There is no "deciding" or "planning" going on. Nore have I ever claimed there is. That's just you and your broken mindreading device.

As for the exact scientists involved in the calculations, that is irrelevant. Find a flaw and point it out. Your evasion by demanding that I provide the precise scientists indicates to me that you are incapable of pointing out any flaw because of an incapacity to properly evaluate the very info you are attempting to denigrate.

You are the one that made the claim. And how could I point out a flaw, if you fail to show me the calculations or the scientists that supposedly did it?

And this point, all I can / need to point out, is that you're making bare assertions without offering anything to back it up.

God? Well, since you folks insist on bringing God into the picture despite my attempts to leave him out, I am just now starting to go along with your preferred modus operandi. Of course then you start to snicker.

Just now? From the beginning, you've been using the terms "designer" and "god" as if they were synonyms. And let's not even get into your continued (and disproved) accusations that people only reject ID because of "atheistic agenda's".

You're not fooling anyone here.

As for evidence? Anything having to do with an intelligent designer is tagged meaningless by atheists.

See? There it is again.

Biologist Ken Miller considers it meaningless as well. He's a devout christian, you know. Off course, you know... I've only told you like a few dozen times, after all.

It's called invincible ignorance or as I refer to it the:
"Ï caint see Nuffin and you cain't make me!"syndrome.

I can't see what you don't show.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The quotation from Hawkings is exactly what he said and what the said harmonizes with the thread title that the universe does displays fine tuning.

Funny how that quote is a spot on confirmation of that KCFromNC stated just 3 posts ago:

Creationists are inclined to leave out that additional explanation in an attempt to confuse "seem to" with "is".

The Hawking quote expresses an APPEARANCE of something. It uses the words "SEEMS TO". Then you turned that into "IT DOES".

You want me to add the disclaimer that Hawking's is an atheist? That's understandable.

Why? Does it matter? I mean "intelligent design" has nothing to do with Gods, right?
Or so you keep saying.

Hawkings is an atheist and his comment was in no way meant to be taken as promoting theism.

Neither is it meant to be taken like you are taking it.

 

[Radrook]

Funny how that quote is a spot on confirmation of that KCFromNC stated just 3 posts ago:



The Hawking quote expresses an APPEARANCE of something. It uses the words "SEEMS TO". Then you turned that into "IT DOES".



Why? Does it matter? I mean "intelligent design" has nothing to do with Gods, right?
Or so you keep saying.




Neither is it meant to be taken like you are taking it.

So if the disclaimer isn't enough, then what else should I add?

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan.

• Arno Penzias, quoted in Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, editors, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salle, Illinois, Open Court, chapter 16, 1992, p. 83

 

[Radrook]

I don't see anything in that quote that suggests that these values could have been any different.

Nore do I see anything there that allows for probability calculations without making a truckload of assumptions.



There is no "deciding" or "planning" going on. Nore have I ever claimed there is. That's just you and your broken mindreading device.



You are the one that made the claim. And how could I point out a flaw, if you fail to show me the calculations or the scientists that supposedly did it?

And this point, all I can / need to point out, is that you're making bare assertions without offering anything to back it up.



Just now? From the beginning, you've been using the terms "designer" and "god" as if they were synonyms. And let's not even get into your continued (and disproved) accusations that people only reject ID because of "atheistic agenda's".

You're not fooling anyone here.



See? There it is again.

Biologist Ken Miller considers it meaningless as well. He's a devout christian, you know. Off course, you know... I've only told you like a few dozen times, after all.



I can't see what you don't show.

No calculations are needed to see what is plainly there.
The problem isn't lack of evidence nor lack of calculations-the problem is the refusal to acknowledge because acknowledgement is unacceptable from an atheistic viewpoint.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if the disclaimer isn't enough, then what else should I add?

Well... you could try starting with some basic intellectual honesty.

 

[Radrook]

Well... you could try starting with some basic intellectual honesty.

The problem is that I don't detect intellectual honesty from those who refuse to see any significance in fine tuning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No calculations are needed to see what is plainly there.

Errrr..... when you make claims about probabilities, then you imply probability calculations. Where are they?

You don't feel like you need probability calculations in order to make claims about probability?

Okay. In that case, I'll just go ahead and say that the probability of the universe existing in its present form is 1 in 1. I don't need to support that assertion, because why would I need to show what is plainly there to see?

I assert it, that settles it.

Yep, makes perfect sense!

The problem isn't lack of evidence nor lack of calculations

It is, when you start making claims about probabilities, without the math to back it up.

-the problem is the refusal to acknowledge because acknowledgement is unacceptable from an atheistic viewpoint.

I have no reason to acknowledge bare assertions.

And there we go again, with the "atheistic" nonsense.

Ken Miller. Francis Collins. The pope.
Armoured. Speedwell.

All theists that disagree with your nonsense.

You really need to start being a bit more honest.