The fine tuning of the universe.

[Hoghead1]

Whatever, there is no serious discussion here about the theory of evolution. I really wish there was someone here willing to have a serious discussion on the subject. I have thousands of books on the subject and I would be glad to discuss any of them with anyone. For example when I went through cardio therapy they recommend the diet that I should be eating to give me the best health with my condition. So according to the theory of evolution - natural selection we can assume that man evolved along with the plants and food that he was eating. So there should be a correlation between the diet that science recommends today and the diet that ancient or primitive man was eating. So I would love to have a conversation about what I have studied about the primitive diet of primitive man but no one seems to be interested. Then you have the neolithic revolution where man was no longer a food gather and he became a food producer. At that time that was a considerable increase in problems man was having with health issues. When it involves man's health civilization was not a good move for him.

Bottom line is that at the time of Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago mankind was going though huge and rapid changes in his living condition and in the food he was eating. Evolution is based on small gradual changes over long periods of time. So there are a lot of issues that you need to deal with if you want to try to defend Darwin's theory. Because if you go by his theory then there are huge contradictions between the different branches of science. All I get on here are claims that Adam and Eve did not exist which means that a lot of so called evolutionists do not know what they are talking about and they do not understand the theory to any degree at all. Of course the people that understand the least are going to be the ones that are accusing others of the exact very thing that they are guilty of.

There are plenty of members here who are involved in a serious discussion of evolution. Question is, Are you? From what you said earlier, it appears you are pro or con evolution depending on the discussion. I think you are providing posts just to stir up arguments.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK so if any of the premises fail then the argument does as well. I have objections to each one but rather than starting another monster post I will just offer obections one at a time.
My first question is how did you determine that this universe that we live in is intrinsically unlikely ?

You've agreed to this before I began?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you determine the unlikeliness of intelligent life?

Fine tuning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine tuning.

Me too. But since an Intelligent Being would be is extremely hard to make it is that value you have squared.

 

[pat34lee]

That would indeed be significant if we´d start from the assumption that "we discussing this" was the intended result.

That is the beauty of knowing we were created.
WE ARE THE INTENDED RESULT.

 

[Athée]

You've agreed to this before I began?

Not at all. I agreed that there are facts about our universe that, were they different, would make life as we know it, or the universe as we know it , impossible.
There is nothing in that statement about probabilities or about what is likely or unlikely.
So how do you get from, there is an observable set of facts, to, those facts are inherently unlikely?

 

[AirPo]

This is about science. It is based on fact. Making things up as you put it is not what is being done.

Yes it is. There is no connection between those fact and the fine tuning not argument.

 

[AirPo]

That is the beauty of knowing we were created.
WE ARE THE INTENDED RESULT.

What a quaint notion.

 

[AirPo]

What would happen if the fundamental constants had values other than those they do have, is, by definition, a thought experiment.

And hence, not a logical argument.

 

[bhsmte]

Pointing out character traits isn't bashing.
I'm simply pointing out that you may not get your intended desire of productive conversation, when you coyly suggest that quotona isn't interested in the SM, when everyone here knows quotna is one of the most rational members here. It's absurd.

Multiple posters have pointed out the fact you repeatedly quote mine what authorities say to fit your own personal, and when you're called out on it, you feign persecution.

"That's all I have to say about that."

Nailed it!

 

[lesliedellow]

And hence, not a logical argument.

Yes, it is an entirely logical argument. Are you saying that Einstein's thought experiments werren't logical arguments?

 

[AirPo]

Yes, it is an entirely logical argument. Are you saying that Einstein's thought experiments werren't logical arguments?

Yes, they were thought experiments. But Einstein knew the difference.

 

[lesliedellow]

So what you are saying is that life as we know it is connected to each of those values in such a way that changing any of them would render life as we know it impossible.
It still seems like it is a thought experiment and it won't get us to a probability of any sort but if the above is what you are arguing then I think I agree.

At 10^-43 seconds into the big bang, gravity would have needed to be fine tuned to one part in 10^60 for a universe with stars and galaxies to have evolved. Ater one second, things are a bit easier, and gravity only had to be fine tuned to one part in 10^15 for a universe with stars and galaxies to exist - and so it goes on with the other fundamental constants of physics. Obviously, no stars would have meant no heavier elements, and therefore no chemistry and no life.

You can put whatever construction you like on that, that the facts themselves are not in dispute.

 

[HitchSlap]

At 10^-43 seconds into the big bang, gravity would have needed to be fine tuned to one part in 10^60 for a universe with stars and galaxies to have evolved. Ater one second, things are a bit easier, and gravity only had to be fine tuned to one part in 10^15 for a universe with stars and galaxies to exist - and so it goes on with the other fundamental constants of physics. Obviously, no stars would have meant no heavier elements, and therefore no chemistry and no life...

...as we know it, you mean.

 

[lesliedellow]

...as we know it, you mean.

No I do not mean, unless you think we can exist as a pure spirit, with no need for chemistry or other physical processes.

 

[HitchSlap]

No I do not mean, unless you mean life as a spirit, with no need for chemistry or other physical processes.

I mean that given enough time, who's to say that a physical universe with different constants couldn't evolve life.

 

[lesliedellow]

I mean that given enough time, who's to say that a physical universe with different constants couldn't evolve life.

How do you get life out of hydrogen and helium? They are all you would have without the nuclear furnaces of stars.

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you get life out of hydrogen and helium? They are all you would have without the nuclear furnaces of stars.

I have no idea. However, there's no justification to say it never would/could.

 

[Abraxos]

I have no idea. However, there's no justification to say it never would/could.

Huh. So just...

Spoiler

 

[Robert Palase]

Huh. So just...

Fine tuning is due to either:
Necessity? who's necessity ours?
Chance? it happened, had it not none of us would be here to even talk about it.
Designed? by what and how would we know even if it was?