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.
First off I think your getting ahead of yourself. The face on Mars is not a face. It only looks like a face at a certain distance and with the angle of light hitting it. It doesn't look like a face from another 100 different points of view. So is it a face or an illusion in reality. There for nothing is designed to start with. Secondly if it did happen to look like a face like some features in nature end up sort of doing we know it stems from an unguided process and just happens to fluke that look at that point in time. A good example of the opposite which has intentional design would be Mount Rushmore. No one would say that this can happen in nature from a chance and accidental process. It depicts design and intelligent influence.
No its not because the face on Mars can be repeated all over the universe. Faces or shapes and features that look like human design are seen all the time in nature. Its not special to Mars or even that location on Mars. The patterns that formed that face are the same patterns that can form other faces on other planets so there's no fine tuning for this on Mars.
Its more than just another chemical reaction. But thats what evolution would like us to think.
Yes but its not the specific geological formation we are talking about. Just like we dont focus on one specific life. It comes under the heading of formations made by nature that look like human design. Otherwise you are excluding all the other formations that are from the same forces that created the one on Mars. The one on Mars would be cause by erosion, wind, dirt ect. They are all the same ingredients for other formations. If you changed the wind by x amount of degree you will still get some formations.
No they use calculations such as from engineering to determine what meets the design criteria and what doesn't. As I said papers have been done on this and they dont base these on subjectivity. Did you even read the papers.
I think you trying to make unreal assertions now. A cloud is changing all the time. The fact it changes all the time shows it is subject to natural forces which could make it whatever shape according to those natural forces. What happens in that split moment is just one freeze frame of the clouds random shapes that are constantly changing.
How do you tell those apart? You STILL haven't answered this question.
An argument from personal incredulity from a non-expert, all of which is icing on a colossal argument from ignorance? You are a master baker.
You are mixing the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life with the earth being fine-tuned for life. You haven't reconciled this problem, something you've been doing for pages and pages and pages.
What "level of preciseness"?
I'll take "blind, vague conjectures" for 500, Alex.
Reading you accusing scientists of sliding the goalpost back is absolutely hilarious.
Sorry, you continue to confuse "fine-tuned universe" with "fine-tuned earth". If the universe is finely-tuned for life, there would be lots of it all over the place. If only the earth was finely-tuned for life, then earth may be the only planet with life on it in the whole universe out of accident.
Or if there is only one universe the size of the observable universe, there's trillions of trillions planets, each featuring trillions of trillions of accidental trials where life can begin.
Same goes for the thing on Mars.
A rare phenomenon is only significant if you pre-assume intent.
How so? Was there - just like we have words to which we can compare the paragraph to - a life that we can compare the actually existing life to?
*sigh*
No, it is more like how the whole universe (just the one, even) is sufficiently large that even tremendously unlikely events are inevitable.
I'm not talking about the multiverse, stop talking about it as though it means anything to our discussion. I'm not making the claim that a multiverse is likely or the case. Our one universe, the observable universe, is extremely enormous. Our planet may be the one instance where things happened to line up in a mildly fortunate way.
EXACTLY. It just happens that you live on earth and you only know about earth, so you think your outcome is special. Your position is literally "the universe was fine-tuned to produce life on earth", which is an absolute absurd claim.
Thank you for the largely irrelevant statistics lesson. If each person buys a ticket, then someone is ABSOLUTELY going to win. If there are enough players, and each player has a different ticket, then there will be at least one winner, guaranteed.
There are several multiple-lottery winners in the US and Canada. I'm super interested in how you determine the threshold of "lucky", though.
If those parameters apply to the universe, then the universe would be crowded with planets full of creatures running around.
Are... are you serious? Do you not understand what I'm saying? I'm saying that you can pick any random chain of 150 numbers and that exact chain of 150 numbers appears somewhere in Pi. There are countless chains of 150 numbers that do not match your 150, but you are absolutely assured that your selection will appear. There are only a handful of factors that come into what Pi is: the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference, and Pi doesn't care what 150 numbers you picked.
You've been lifting quotes from people who obviously disagree with practically every one of your significant conclusions.
You're begging the question.
What is preventing me from selecting the correct Mega Millions number every day for a week? Or twice in my lifetime? Or every day for a month?
Googling "Dr. Dennis Scania" returns nothing relevant.
I hope you understand why I'm dismissing this as a desperate quote mine.
Since you won't give the context surrounding your desperate quote mine, I will: he is addressing life as we know it on earth. That's the hard part with not knowing all of the variables and not being able to test every possible outcome of all cosmic constraints: life may exist, and it may be different. Or it might not, and nobody knows.
Ah, but you are religious and you're pushing an agenda, which is why you only offered tiny snippets of things you claim they say with no reference to the source material and the surrounding context.
"I don't know why this happened, therefore, it must have been an engineered outcome"?
Who are these scientists? What do they say?
No, they are your conclusions.
Any claim they make of "fine-tuning" is retrospective and certainly not what you're trying to argue.
This, coming from an irrelevant non-expert who is going to wave around quote-mined snippets from relevant and credible experts in order to bolster the credibility of your position while you simultaneously simply "disagree" with the rest of their conclusion, is an indication of intellectual bankruptcy.
The anthropic principle is hardly something you can hang your hat on.
I make no such admission, but you need the universe to be fine-tuned if there is a God. Tell me, exactly what are the unavoidable implications of a fine-tuned universe?
You don't get to hide behind your quote-mined scientists and hope their presence shields you from the fallacious arguments you are making. You are making a fallacious argument, an argument from ignorance.
Nobody needs to explain why. .
I can only read the abstract, and the abstract doesn't really say anything you are suggesting the paper says.
If it takes intelligence to build a freezer, does that mean the ice at the North Pole is intelligently designed.
It is the engineers who determine is something has design qualities to it. They have the expertise as they are the ones who can determine the maths and calculations involved in something that is designed or something that is just random chance. Quite often you here of engineers using nature as a way to improve their design models. They get ideas from nature for making better designs. So when is design not design. If it looks like design and acts like design, chances are its designed.Here is the crystal structure of a protein binding to DNA:
Using those equations, determine if that protein is designed.
They will look into the fine details of how a bird wing for example is structured. How parts are interlinked and work the same as man made design. So they will assess whether the unctions and components of a wing for example are designed or just came together by chance.
Of course, and I have often used this as an example of design verses naturalistic events. There are certain criteria that need to be met with design for which nature doesn't have.
Their changes may be the result of pre existing information or the ability to tap into existing info in other creatures are the environment around them.
Its hard to say what the artists intentions were. I am not an art critic to know the deeper levels of art. They say blue poles is a magnificent painting showing complex artistic genius but to many it looks like this a bunch of blotches on a canvas. So I guess you have to know your art to understand the design. But what would you say if someone said they threw that paint at the paper and it made a beautiful landscape picture. Would you believe them. What would the odds be. Yet this is what evolution and naturalistic processes say happens in nature with some of the complex design we see. They say you can throw colors at the moth wings and create a beautiful painting. Here is a moth with a mural painting on its wings. Yet we are suppose to believe this was created by random and chance mutations.
Inevitable to the point where the odds of it happening are impossible.
Mildly fortunate way. They say the odds of our one universe lining up and being just right for life are impossible odds. Here are just 4 constants and their odds so imagine the dozens of physical constants and their odds all lining up.
rotons 1:10/37Yes and the odds for that one winner will be great because its based on chance. But if there were 122 conditions that pointed to that one person winning then you would say that the lottery was fixed. By stating it was fixed you are then acknowledging that there was some meddling going on and someone or something was controlling things to ensure that end result.
Ah if there are 1 million tickets sold and each person bought one ticket then the odds will be 1 million to one. Is that not luck enough. The more tickets you hold the more chances you have of holding the winning ticket. So the odds start to go in your favor the more tickets you have. But the lottery is still based on luck. Nothing you can do will cause the person drawing the ticket to home in on the ticket you have. Its blind luck.
No your seeing things back the front. If all the conditions pointed to that one ticket being the one that was finely tuned to win then that would be the only one. There wouldn't be creatures running around everywhere because there wouldn't be many tickets or in this case planets that were homed in on. It would be just the one special place.
I cant see the relevance to do with the fine tuning of the universe. There are over 122 physical constants that have to be fairly precise to allow life. In some cases such as with the gravitational force if altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, neither Earth nor our Sun would exist—and you would not be here reading this. These are specific conditions that need to be met. It goes beyond chance to a point where you have to consider something having some sort of influence on things.
Did you even read the quotes from those scientists. Many mainstream scientists agree that there is fine tuning in the universe for life. You would have to be in denial to not acknowledge this.
No I'm stating exactly how the fine tuning works. There are over 122 physical constants that point to it being fine tuned. You begging the answer.
The millions of other tickets that are also available. Its called odds. The odds of you winning are about 1 in 258,890,850.0000. The odds for the cosmological constant being so fine tuned to produce life is one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (10/60).
There are many others who you should know like Stephen Hawkins for example. Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"
Refer to previous reference for wikipedia that most scientist agree with the fine tuning so its not a quote mine but a common agreed conclusion.
Ive given the context in many different ways. I must have linked 10 plus different references for scientist supporting the fine tuning argument.
No I haven't really gone into saying why the universe may be fine tuned. I am just trying to establish with you what many other people have already accepted. It doesn't mean there is a God. It could be that there is some alien race who are pulling all the strings. It might be there is an unknown factor that causes everything to follow certain paths in nature. It may be that there is a multiverse or other dimensions that we dont know about which have different tuning.
All that can be determined is whether something has the hallmarks of design or not.
These are the experts in their fields of engineering for example. They are best to understand what it takes for something to be a product of design or a product of chance and accident or a bit of both. I have posted some papers with some of the experts results.
If you say so, but just read the papers. Ie refer to odds posted earlier.
what am I trying to argue.
Nope there's only one thing we agree on and thats the finely tuned universe for life.
It is one of the best things to hang your hat on for proving the fine tuning argument. Refer to previous post or better still video.
If there is a God and he is the creator then he needs to create. Life is very complex and full of design. It seems incredible that all this just came from nothing and made complexity out of simple things. It goes against all that is logical. The fine tuning for life may be just one aspect that points to design and therefor a designer.
How.
OK here is another paper from the same author that is similar with the full content.
Not at all; stepwise refinement will do it. For example, butterflies with whitish wings and brownish bodies look more like bird droppings than all-brown butterflies (in some bird rich environment). So less get eaten and they reproduce more. Soon there's a whole population of white winged butterflies with brown bodies - but the predator soon adapts, and can better spot white wings on brown bodies. A random blob of brown on the wing looks unappetising from even closer, so those butterflies don't get picked off so quickly. Soon the population all have brown blobs. Over millions of generations and with a large population, all kinds of blobs, smudges, lines, and colours appear - mostly variations on the most successful pattern so far. Ones that look more unpleasant than the current most unpleasant will survive to breed more and the population will fill with their descendants. If a small red blob appears that looks vaguely like a horrible fly that predators are primed to avoid, it will rapidly spread through the population. The more like bird droppings and flies a butterfly appears, the closer a predator can be without noticing it - a huge advantage. Butterflies with less convincing patterns, e.g. where the red blob doesn't resemble a fly even at a distance, will quickly be eaten - remember that the predator is also evolving to be better at recognising these butterfly fake bird droppings and red-head flies. Eventually, the only surviving butterflies are those that can fool a canny predator even at close range.Here is a moth with a mural painting on its wings. Yet we are suppose to believe this was created by random and chance mutations.
http://www.myrmecos.net/2011/08/30/a-mural-on-moth-wings/
There are two flies on the moths wings which are not just any old flies. They are specific flies that are know in nature to make a predator sick if they eat them. They are identified by the red tips they have. They are feasting on some bird droppings and the detail of the painting even has a glint of white in the right spot to make the whole thing look real by showing the light reflection off the flies wings. So every color and shape is in the right place and it can rival a human water color with its detail and design. So how does this happen bit by bit without it ending up a mess or being rejected as a blotch of meaning less well bird droppings.
Inevitable to the point where the odds of it happening are impossible.
I have always stated that the criteria for design needs to be determined by certain parameters. Yes there are methods and they are objective. And using principles of something like engineering is exactly the way in which you can determine design through principles of design. Otherwise what do you use to measure it against. It would then be subjective and up for interpretation of the individual rather than design principles in engineering. Its comparing chance and accident against design qualities with things like probability, spontaneity, complexity and information.
How does a natural process make specific designed components. The bird wing doesn't just look designed as the paper states. It operates as designed with components that link together in separate parts that are made to fit together in specific ways. A random naturalists method would not know which specific component to make so chances are there will be many misaligned parts and there will be evidence for this in its history. But it seems the evidence shows well defined creatures and features that are made once and made well.
Its funny how evolution can belief such rubbish. Painting by numbers. Random mutations will produce a brown blob that looks like bird droppings. Why bird droppings. A brown blob could look like a 100 different things. The main reason it looks like bird droppings is the perspective that is given to it by it sitting in between two flies eating it. So what about all the other brown blobs that end up in all the other locations on the wings that look just as much like bird droppings in the scenario you want to make. Any location on the wings of a brown blob will look the same and have just as much chance of being that bird dropping. So which moths survive. The ones with the brown blobs up high on the wings or down low or to the left or to the right. How does the brown blob that happens to end up in the right spot for the rest of the picture later know that it needs to be there before hand.
So this indicates design patterns. Otherwise your saying random mutations are choosing particular patterns, colors and shapes which is pointing to design anyway. This is what I am saying that evolution is now claiming that nature can design and create itself. Because there is so much design we see in life evolution now has to appeal to the capabilities of design to account for it. They cant pretend anymore that there isn't design in nature. So the next best thing now is to claim that evolution also has design qualities. The design you have when your not having design.
Design follows the structure, that is the way the genes are expressed. That determines when the pigment genes get turned on and off. They claim our interpretation is explained using a Rorschach test.They say you can throw colors at the moth wings and create a beautiful painting. Here is a moth with a mural painting on its wings. Yet we are suppose to believe this was created by random and chance mutations.
http://www.myrmecos.net/2011/08/30/a-mural-on-moth-wings/
