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.
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.
You've agreed to this before I began?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 postI 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 ?
Fine tuning.
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.You've agreed to this before I began?
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."
And hence, not a logical argument.
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.
...as we know it, you mean.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.
I mean that given enough time, who's to say that a physical universe with different constants couldn't evolve life.
Fine tuning is due to either:Huh. So just...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?