Fine Tuning

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Explain the difference other than your magical belief in time.

You're confused. Magic is what you believe in.

 

[Peter1000]

So you don't know how long it is.

This is like debating with a child.

Good day (again).

One question: How long do you think it took? I am sure you have used your Ph.D in many scientific disciplines, to study both sides of the genetic mutation information. So now, with your vast knowledge of how this works, how long did it take for the thousands of animals in the Cambrian explosion (actually a scientific term) to go from a simple worm to extremely complex bony things etc.?

Let me give you an example:
Lets take the Trilobite. Science says that it first appeared in the fossil record already full developed and found that it was widely dispersed geographically. The interesting thing about the Trilbite is that it was in existence for about 270,000,000 years and was basically the same from the beginning to the end. No evolution for the Trilobite, just came fully developed and ended the same way.

The Anomalocaris has a lobed body, a true compound eye, 2 claw-tipped appendages kind of coming out of it's mouth. Wow, from a half inch sof-bodied worm to an Anomalocaris. What do genetics specialists say the time required for that to happen?

So you need to tell me how long it took? Then when you tell me, I will only be able to half agree with you because you will be getting your information from a scientist that is guessing.

 

[Peter1000]

What a creative story.

I think I'm done here.

Good day.

You don't think scientists fudge their results sometimes so they can keep their donors happy and contributing to their careers?

The global warming scientists showed us how stupid they think we are, and how important it was to come up with good global warming data for their donors, as they plugged in falsified numbers to show us that there is indeed global warming.

Science today is a big-buck business, and science today is more and more a godless business. So whatever we have to do to keep our grant going, we do it, and whatever we can do to put some doubt in the God-fearing, we will do it, no matter if it is the truth or not.

 

[Peter1000]

You link only asserts that the values are fine tuned.

It does not supply supporting evidence.

It's possible I've missed it. Could you (in your own words) briefly summarise the evidence that has convinced you?

The links you provide are not supporting your assertion.

All the best.

Look at post #147

 

[Mobezom]

Yes I can.

But now you have brought up the multiuniverse argument against a Superior Being that specially designed this universe.

Stephen Hawking is the big atheist advocate for this theory. He has said that this universe is so special and so precision that it looks like there should be some kind of a Superior Designer, so his thoughtful argument to that ghastly concept centers around his multiuniverse theory.

He says that because there are countless universes, it only makes sense that 1 of them would have the special qualities that this universe has.

Therefore, he is able to keep 'the chance happening' scenerio alive, and knock God out of the equation with one single theory. How convenient. Now I can keep sinning and carrying on in any manner that I wish, because there is no God to worry about, you know consequences for my actions, and all that stuff.

Oh, that's right! I'm only an atheist because I like to sin, yep. /s

The only problem is that there is not one shred of evidence that has been brought forth to confirm a 2nd universe, let alone countless universes. Remember it is just a theory, it is not reality, yet.

Oh bloody hell, this will never die. Just a theory, yep. Just like how an Olympic gold-medalist is "just an athlete."

There's no evidence for your God, either, but you infer that he exists from this supposed "fine-tuning" that you observe. Double standards are not fun.

I say yet, because we may very well find a 2nd universe, some time in our future. But I will suggest, to the horror of people like Stephen Hawking, that the 2nd universe will be as special a universe as the one we live in and that a Superior Being designed it too. Wow, what a scientific mind blower.

Religion doesn't horrify me. The horrific wars and massacres that it's sparked do, though.

As for the pondfish, he was right. It was incredibly improbable that he was placed in that pond. But he was wrong about the pond 1 meter to the south. It too had fish that could think and were aware of themselves, just like him. It is because that pond was designed by the same Superior Being that designed his pond, and his form, and his existence.

...my analogy specifically stated that there was only one pond that could sustain consciousness. If all universes can sustain consciousness - well, then, your argument is moot! (It's still moot regardless, though, because of the anthropic principle.)

So when we think of multiuniverses, it does not eliminate God, it expands His presence. He is all in all.
It is a beautiful study, how God uses nature to accomplish His purposes. Change your paradigm just a little to include a Superior Being in your theories, and see how answers to questions just start popping out in regular cadence. Your life will be different.

Funny - when I have defeated you on the field of science and logic, you retreat to religion. Escape hatches are not fun.

Exactly how will these "regular answers" come about? Will God say "the left coefficient is three point four oh nine"? Or will he send me a letter every few days?

 

[Peter1000]

There has been no scientific experiment or scientific observation that has confirmed the ability for random, unintelligent, non-living chemicals to swirl around in a soup-like solution and eventually produce 1 simple living cell with the capability to reproduce itself.

But then a single cell is hardly simple.

That is what science is confirming now and for many years, that even a simple living cell is not simple, it is very complex. Which helps me decide that a complex cell has a zero chance of making itself up, and being able to replicate itself, therefore there needed to be more that a 'chance happening' process going on here. There needed to be a Superior Intelligence that was making it happen.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Mobezom]

That is what science is confirming now and for many years, that even a simple living cell is not simple, it is very complex. Which helps me decide that a complex cell has a zero chance of making itself up, and being able to replicate itself, therefore there needed to be more that a 'chance happening' process going on here. There needed to be a Superior Intelligence that was making it happen.

Thanks for the discussion.

...which is why we don't say that complex cells simply "made themselves." Try sciencing correctly, it's rather fun.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Explain the difference other than your magical belief in time.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+difference+between+spontaneous+generation+and+abiogenesis

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't think scientists fudge their results sometimes so they can keep their donors happy and contributing to their careers?

I have no doubt that some will.
They are humans, after all.

The global warming scientists showed us how stupid they think we are, and how important it was to come up with good global warming data for their donors, as they plugged in falsified numbers to show us that there is indeed global warming.

Science today is a big-buck business, and science today is more and more a godless business. So whatever we have to do to keep our grant going, we do it, and whatever we can do to put some doubt in the God-fearing, we will do it, no matter if it is the truth or not.

Yea... it's a world wide satanic conspiracy.

Meanwhile, polar ice is at an all time low, eco systems are being turned upside down, entire species of crucial insects are slowely going extinct, tornado's are showing up in Italy and temperature records are broken every other day.

ps: how do you breath, with your head locked so deep in the sand?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is what science is confirming now and for many years, that even a simple living cell is not simple, it is very complex. Which helps me decide that a complex cell has a zero chance of making itself up, and being able to replicate itself, therefore there needed to be more that a 'chance happening' process going on here. There needed to be a Superior Intelligence that was making it happen.

Thanks for the discussion.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument for anything, other then your ignorance.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Let me once again demonstrate what I mean by fine-tuning:
The mass of the proton divided by the mass of the electron is 1836.15267245.

Ok.

This important scientific ratio has its own symbol (u) and is considered a miraculous constant because it has held to be true since the beginning of time and in all quadrants of the universe.

Wouldn't it be strange if it were not true? Why would you expect the properties of electrons or protons to evolve?

Science cannot explain how this ratio came into existence

Therefore God...?

and they cannot explain how all protons and electrons ever existing can maintain this constant ratio.

If two protons were of different masses, would they both be protons?

Science does know this: this ratio is so miraculous that if it were larger or smaller by 1 in 10^37 THERE WOULD BE NO LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Science knows this? Where is your source?

Here is one more:
The neutron (n) weighs 1.00137841870 times greater than a proton (p).

This exact weight difference, allows the neutron to decay readily into protons, electrons, and neutrinos, a process that assures the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium and gave us a universe that is dominated by hydrogen.

If this weight ratio between neutron and proton were just slightly larger, we would be living in a universe with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to come forth.

Again you provide no source.

If this weight ratio was just slightly smaller, protons would decay into neutrons, leaving the universe without atoms.

Protons would decay into neutrons? In what finely tuned universe does that make sense? A proton decays into a proton-electron bundle?

The result of a smaller or larger ratio would mean NO LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Source...?

Now that I, the simpleton have demonstrated

Actually you have demonstrated nothing until you provide your sources.

2 of hundreds of universal constants, I ask you, who must have a phD in Quantum theory to explain:
1) how these constants came into existence?
2) how they have maintained themselves over billions of years?

In your answer you cannot use the concept of a 'random chance happening', because there is a zero possiblility that a random, unintelligent force has performed such a precise creation, and has maintained this precise condition for billions of years.
Remember: random, unintelligent nature has a tendency to decay, rot, go out of sync, etc.

I don't think I need to answer any of that because you have demonstrated nothing whatsoever.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Explain the difference other than your magical belief in time.

efm: You're confused. Magic is what you believe in..

First, I notice you did not explain the difference, so I will take that as an unable to. Second, evolutionists DO believe that time is magical, with enough of it Anything can happen, even an amoeba can become a human. If that is not magic I don't what is.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

First, I notice you did not explain the difference, so I will take that as an unable to.

It's not my job to educate you. You don't even know what abiogenesis is, let alone what an educated critique of it would look like.

It's 2016. You're on the internet. There are hundreds of free educational resources literally at your fingertips, sourced to primary scientific literature. Your ignorance is inexcusable.

Second, evolutionists DO believe that time is magical, with enough of it Anything can happen, even an amoeba can become a human. If that is not magic I don't what is.

Again, you're confused. Biological organisms coming into existence through magic is what you believe, not me.

 

[Peter1000]

I have no doubt that some will.
They are humans, after all.



Yea... it's a world wide satanic conspiracy.

Meanwhile, polar ice is at an all time low, eco systems are being turned upside down, entire species of crucial insects are slowely going extinct, tornado's are showing up in Italy and temperature records are broken every other day.

ps: how do you breath, with your head locked so deep in the sand?

I believe there is climate change. If you have read any history about climate change, you know that it does change.

The big question is: is it all man made? The answer is no, but certain organization would have you think it is all man made, and these organizations are being backed up by scientists who are giving them the very information they need to put their agenda's forward to 'help the planet'. Oh BYW these organizations and the scientists are getting
filthy rich as they 'help the planet'.

 

[Peter1000]

...which is why we don't say that complex cells simply "made themselves." Try sciencing correctly, it's rather fun.

OK, if the first simple cell did not make itself, then who or what did?

Give me your scientific answer in a couple of paragraphs. Remember, I know almost nothing, so you can dumb it down for me. Give it a try.

 

[Peter1000]

Ok.



Wouldn't it be strange if it were not true? Why would you expect the properties of electrons or protons to evolve?



Therefore God...?



If two protons were of different masses, would they both be protons?



Science knows this? Where is your source?



Again you provide no source.



Protons would decay into neutrons? In what finely tuned universe does that make sense? A proton decays into a proton-electron bundle?



Source...?



Actually you have demonstrated nothing until you provide your sources.



I don't think I need to answer any of that because you have demonstrated nothing whatsoever.

Read my posts #140, and #147.

This is your ready made response. I see you use this response to other forum contributors.

You give zero demonstrations for your position, but you demand a thorough demonstration of my position. It's like your position is so solid and factual, and it is my position that is not. So you don't have to back up your position, but I have to back up mine.

So again, here is the questions I ask you to demonstrate from the scientific postition.
1) Besides 'random chance happenings' what caused the hundreds of precision constants to come together in this universe?
2) how have these constants maintained themselves over billions of years?

Thanks in advance for answering these 2 questions.

 

[Mobezom]

Read my posts #140, and #147.
1) Besides 'random chance happenings' what caused the hundreds of precision constants to come together in this universe?

Loaded question.

2) how have these constants maintained themselves over billions of years?

Not even wrong. By definition constants are constant.

 

[Mobezom]

OK, if the first simple cell did not make itself, then who or what did?

Give me your scientific answer in a couple of paragraphs. Remember, I know almost nothing, so you can dumb it down for me. Give it a try.

Whoa whoa whoa, you said "complex" before. Simple self-replicating protocells did make themselves, but they looked nothing like existing unicellular organisms.

Chemicals happen, right? We don't need to invoke God to explain a pool of chemicals? Good. Now, we know that RNA can serve as both information and enzyme, carrying out the actions that it itself codes for - then couldn't a piece of RNA code for its own creation, simply by chance? If so, we now have reproduction with error (as there are errors in RNA production). Thus, evolution can occur, giving us everything we see today after a billion years or four.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Read my posts #140,

An overtly Christian site whose source is Hugh Ross. I met with him personally and wasn't impressed. I explained in detail why the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails and he had no response, he only shook his head and rejected what I had to say. Perhaps that kind of response is adequate if I'm ambushing him in his personal life, say if he's out having dinner, but this was a Q&A and the topic was cosmology in the context of theology.

Hugh Ross is a fine astronomer, but he is an incompetent cosmologist.

and #147.

A Wikipedia article which is the very antithesis of everything you've said. It does not mention the proton-electron mass ratio being necessary for life and in fact it says explicitly that it is unknown if the value is constant throughout the universe and for all time. Did you even read the article at all?

This is your ready made response. I see you use this response to other forum contributors.

I need only post a random string of letters to sufficiently respond to you. I gave you the respect of reading everything you had to say and you have disappointed me greatly. Your sources about cosmological issues are a Christian astronomer and a Wikipedia article that does not even agree with your position.

You give zero demonstrations for your position, but you demand a thorough demonstration of my position.

I'm officially through with you. I will not be reading your responses ever again.

In post #102 you reject the idea that you need to read the OP. Now you misidentify my position. I've said at every opportunity that I think fine tuning is the best card theists can play, and I'm asking for evidence on either side. That's what the OP goes on about. I don't have a position here. I'm looking to be swayed by the evidence. If you bothered to read the OP, you'd know that.

If you fancy yourself as an apologist, then you must read what an atheist has to say when conversing with him or her. This approach of yours is utterly embarrassing and will only burn more bridges for you. Good luck on your endeavors.

It's like your position is so solid and factual, and it is my position that is not. So you don't have to back up your position, but I have to back up mine.

The null hypothesis does not require backing. Positive claims do. Either redefine science for all of humanity, or go educate yourself on the scientific method so that you are competent for these discussions.

So again, here is the questions I ask you to demonstrate from the scientific postition.
1) Besides 'random chance happenings' what caused the hundreds of precision constants to come together in this universe?
2) how have these constants maintained themselves over billions of years?

Thanks in advance for answering these 2 questions.

Like I said in the OP, which you did not bother to read, my answer is that I don't know. All of this stems from you not reading the OP. I can only wonder what else I've said to you that has gone unread. I will ensure that I return the favor to you.

 

[Peter1000]

Oh, that's right! I'm only an atheist because I like to sin, yep. /s

It is right, from my discussions with atheists, they do not like their history of God, and they don't like the idea that there is a God that commands them what they have to do. So they reject the idea of God.

Oh bloody hell, this will never die. Just a theory, yep. Just like how an Olympic gold-medalist is "just an athlete."

You seem to be making a big deal out of the word 'theory'. It really is not that difficult, even for a simpleton like me. Here is how it works.

1) the scientist makes an educated guess

2) the scientist makes a hypothesis

3) the scientist makes up a theory

4) the theory is confirmed from many other scientists

5) the theory becomes a law.


Until the theory becomes a law, it is still a theory, a big guess, with some research attached to it, some say yes, some say ney. When all say yes, it now becomes a law, not until. See how simple that was. Everything that we have been talking about is still in the 'theory' stage. Sorry, that how science works.


The theory of how the universe came into existence

The theory of how life began

The theory of evolution

The theory of multiverses

The theory of everything


All theories, not fact or law, just theory. You can't get around it. Theory does not equal law.

There's no evidence for your God, either, but you infer that he exists from this supposed "fine-tuning" that you observe. Double standards are not fun.

My position is that the fine-tuning of our universe erase any inferences and points directly to a Superior Being.


What inferences do you have for mulituniverses, besides Stephen Hawking says so?

Funny - when I have defeated you on the field of science and logic, you retreat to religion. Escape hatches are not fun.

That is a funny. Have you seen my white flag yet. If you think you defeated me with your multiverse theory, forget it. Or maybe you would like Stephen to talk about the 'theory of everything', which is so weak, it has no credibility, except on Star Trek, the next generation.

The reason it is so weak is because there is no evidence of such a condition. No scientist has been to the 2nd universe, no scientist has seen the 2nd universe, nobody has come from there and said, hi, i'm from the 2nd universe, except on Star Trek, the next generation. So if you are taking some kind of victory lap, hope you make it without stumbling and falling.