The fine tuning of the universe.

[quatona]

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

Yeah, I know that this is the premise you are working from. However, the argument pretends it were the conclusion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We are talking about the fine tuning of the existing universe.

Which you view as evidence for a deity. Why? We have no idea how probable physics like those we observe are, so I fail to see how the requirements for life as we know it matter.

I guess you haven't seen the new study on the Methuselah star then. The study came up with a age at the start of the universe rather than being older.

As a non-physics major, I'm not shocked by not knowing about that. That doesn't negate my point that a lot of pertinent information about universes that we'd HAVE to know in order for someone to claim that the universe was fine-tuned, in the sense that you are using the definition as evidence for a deity, is missing.

Obviously that is how science works. Just like in Biology, new information and a new way of determining information brings new understanding. Just like in Biology, these finding perfect usually what is known. It is through the same scientific methodology that we have discovered the fine tuned constants in our universe. We might perfect what we know but that doesn't mean that these will change because they are as foundational as say DNA is to us. Without them we would not be here discussing them.

You do realize that the universe has physical properties that aren't constant, right? Or, at least, ones we don't understand well enough to recognize consistency in. Constants are just a portion of physics equations, in case you haven't noticed. But, frankly, if you can't demonstrate that universes would ever form with different physics, this idea that the illusion of fine tuning would require a deity has as much substance as an empty portion of space.

What you are failing to see is that you wouldn't be getting amino acids necessary for life if it were not for the fine tuned constants. That is the point.

Irrelevant; unless you provide evidence that naturalistic processes CAN'T produce a universe like our own because of the narrow parameters of physics you think are necessary for life, it wouldn't matter if no degree of variation was acceptable. We can't determine the probability of a universe like ours forming, so it's a moot point.

We aren't playing the numbers, we are doing science. It seems that because your main focus is on life of this planet and you don't really care why or how it exists, then it is of no scientific significance. The fine tuning argument isn't that only our form of life could exist, it is that our kind of life couldn't if they were different. But I have to ask, why do you think there would be life of another kind?

-_- it's fairly easy to construct a model of a universe that would result in life fundamentally different than what we have observed, I even gave you an example with oxygen having the properties of carbon. And I only have life on our planet to actually study, and the universe we exist in; if we discover life from somewhere else within my lifetime, I will gladly study it, but I have to work with what I have, as well as other universes. But, I can't, I can only speculate, and the same goes for you. That's why you can't assume that our universe is somehow special, because the sample size is just too small if there is a multiverse, and we know so little that we have no idea how many universe there could be. They could be practically infinite, negating any statistical nonsense you want to try to throw even more than I have already challenged without you being able to meet said challenge. In order to even try to calculate how likely it would be for our universe to exist, we'd have to know what physical properties a universe could have, if any of those properties are more likely to occur than others, and how many universes exist at a bare minimum. We know none of that.

Have you used Bayesian probability in your studies?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED This might show what our abilities are.

Hahahahahahaha, this is like presenting evolution and how well evidenced it is, and suggesting that all theories in biology are equally well-evidenced. Even the Wiki feels the need to bring up the fact that this particular physics theory is one of the most well-supported in the field. Not all theories are equal. But hey, let's see some of what wikipedia has to say about fine tuning in regards to physical constants, shall we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

"Fine-tuned Universe[edit]
Main articles: Fine-tuned Universe and Anthropic principle
Some physicists have explored the notion that if the dimensionless physical constants had sufficiently different values, our Universe would be so radically different that intelligent life would probably not have emerged, and that our Universe therefore seems to be fine-tuned for intelligent life. The anthropic principle states a logical truism: the fact of our existence as intelligent beings who can measure physical constants requires those constants to be such that beings like us can exist. There are a variety of interpretations of the constants' values, including that of a divine creator (the apparent fine-tuning is actual and intentional), or that ours is one universe of many in a multiverse (e.g. the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), or even that, if information is an innate property of the universe and logically inseparable from consciousness, a universe without the capacity for conscious beings cannot exist."

Well, what do you know, both alternatives of interpreting fine-tuning as not being indicative of deities are listed. I wonder why. Understand, I do think that life as we know it would not exist if the physical constants were messed with, but I view the fact that our universe does have us within it more as life developing in the form that it could if it could rather than something intentional. Under one view of fine-tuning, I would be considered a supporter of it. However, that's not the definition you use. You assume that this means a deity had to be involved, but whether or not the conditions needed to support life as we know it are narrow, I don't view that as even related to deities at all. I can't even comprehend how anyone could view it as such without falling to some bias.

Right now Sarah we are only discussing the fine tuning part of the argument and it seems to me that everyone including you are so set against God that you would rather stubbornly dismiss scientific theory if it could in any way be used in an argument for God's existence.

I dismiss tons of theories unrelated to theological discussions. This just happens to be a subforum in which the subject matter wouldn't have me bring those theories up very much, if at all. But, I think you are confused, because there's not really a standard to what people mean when they say "fine tuning"
Definition you seem to be using: The universe was purposely given physical rules that made life possible by necessity.
I disagree with the necessity, the purpose, and the concept that physical rules are something beyond just us observing how the universe works, and designing equations for the bits we can grasp.

Alternative definition that is very common: The universe has physical properties that allow life to form, and even slight adjustments to those physical properties could make life as we know it impossible.
Note how this is different from your definition. A key trait of actual theories is that they are secular, due to the absence of evidence for deities (not that I think this is so much a theory as an observation). It wouldn't matter if the universe was demonstrably impossible without some outside force to guide it, that wouldn't make said guide a deity, or even sentient. And as is it, the universe is not demonstrably evidenced to require such a guide, so not only are you incorrectly extrapolating this as evidence for a deity, but the item you are extrapolating doesn't have a particularly solid foundation.

You all might want to ask yourselves why you will support anything in science up to or excluding that which might provide evidence for God.

I'm personally skeptical of Universal ancestor theory in biology. I have mentioned that to you before, why would you think I am not skeptical or critical of scientific theories independent of my personal views on deities? Additionally, we may have debated many times, but only in a very narrow range of topics. You don't know me well enough to judge what I am and am not skeptical of beyond what I have directly said to you.

You are always claiming you really want to know but then I see you here in this thread and your actions are speaking to the opposite of what you are claiming.

I disagree with what people have presented as "evidence" for deities, because of fundamental flaws always being present. I'm not making those errors up, but if you refuse to look at them, that's on you.

Sarah, the majority of scientists in the field agree that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life. These scientists have all sorts of different beliefs, some are atheists, some are deists, some are Christians but their personal beliefs are not what the fine tuning is based upon.

Demonstrably wrong, because the majority of scientists in the field of physics are non-theists, so they aren't using fine-tuning to mean the same thing you are. The fact that you think that some atheists would support fine-tuning should indicate that they wouldn't view said item as evidence for a deity's involvement.

 

[AirPo]

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.

Yes they are, as it still just all unsupported assertions.

 

[AirPo]

Huh. So just...

Spoiler

Should have checked the spoiler first!

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are plenty of members here who are involved in a serious discussion of evolution.

It has been a long time sense I have seen anyone involved in a serious in debth discussion. I try to get one going but most most people avoid in debth discussions because it rapidly becomes apparent that evolutionary theory is a myth and a fairy tale with no real science to back it up. Horse evolution is a wonderful example because just about every drawing they come up with is as bogus as can be. Horses did not evolved from small to big the way the art drawing show. They evolved more like this. Evolutionists want to shrug it off that they were and really still are promoting a bogus lie. Because what is really going on is more complicated then what they are ready, willing and able to deal with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

As a builder I can not stress enough how precise the univese would have had to be in the beginning. Because everything gets projected out and a tiny tiny tiny error in the beginning would be very huge in the end.

Once I was looking at how fast a zygote develops into a baby. Along they way they slow down and eventually quit growing. If a baby continued to develop at the same rate they being then by the time we are 30 years old we would be the size of the universe.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But again, this is just a belief and not really supported by evidence.

This is based on what they call Oral Tradition going back at least as far as Moses. Actually in the Bible we know that Moses studied learned under his father in law Jethro. This is the same tradition that the Big Bang Theory is based on. So this is FAR FAR FAR more then just a belief and we have all the same evidence for this that we have for the Big Band Theory. So your claim is totally unsubstantiated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is based on what they call Oral Tradition going back at least as far as Moses. Actually in the Bible we know that Moses studied learned under his father in law Jethro. This is the same tradition that the Big Bang Theory is based on. So this is FAR FAR FAR more then just a belief and we have all the same evidence for this that we have for the Big Band Theory. So your claim is totally unsubstantiated.

Again, not 'know', all you have is belief. And you do not understand the nature of evidence if you think that you have the same evidence that we have for the Big Bang Theory.

also you do not seem to understand. My statement on the fact that you have only belief needs no substantiation. It is an observation. If you want to claim that I am wrong then the burden of proof is upon you to show viable evidence for your beliefs. You have not been able to show any. Now if you demanded evidence for the Big Bang on my part I could and would supply it if you demand it. I will substantiate my claims that need substantiation. I have yet to see you do the same.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Again, not 'know', all you have is belief.

What we have written in the Bible is MORE then just a belief. This is as accurate of History as your ever going to see. In fact the Bible contains a lot about Moses, Jethro and Moses wife. Even there is a story about Moses sister in the Bible. So we learn a lot about these people from the stories that we read about them. You show no evidence that you have ever read the Bible or that you know anything about the bible other then what you read in five min on skeptics dot come. You must have a alternative motive that you do not put proper research into your study. You need to trace your skepticism in on a little scrutiny. Because Bible skepticism always fails on close examination.

The bottom line is that anti theists do not understand the Bible because if they did then they would no longer be anti theists. Even if Mr Skeptic from Skeptics dot com has his skeptics interpretation, HE is only ONE person. You have to ignore the testimony of millions if not billions of people and trade that all for the testimony of one person. For me there is more safety in numbers. Rather then to trust in ONE person, it is better to trust in the Church and where they are in agreement today. Even if you reject what they do not agree on, you can still accept what everyone agrees on.

So you do not convince me mr Subduction, because what you say does not have substance or proper authority and is in fact rejected by science itself. There is a overwhelming agreement that Bible skepticism is not true nor accurate. That is why we have authorized translations and interpretations and we have a variety of what is unauthorized and your school of thought represents revisionism along with what is unauthorized and renegade. So for me skeptics MUST have some sort of a hidden agenda because what they represent has nothing of any substance to back it up. They must have a hidden reason why they reject science and the evidence that science provides as to what is accurate and true.

 

[Athée]

What we have written in the Bible is MORE then just a belief. This is as accurate of History as your ever going to see. In fact the Bible contains a lot about Moses, Jethro and Moses wife. Even there is a story about Moses sister in the Bible. So we learn a lot about these people from the stories that we read about them. You show no evidence that you have ever read the Bible or that you know anything about the bible other then what you read in five min on skeptics dot come. You must have a alternative motive that you do not put proper research into your study. You need to trace your skepticism in on a little scrutiny. Because Bible skepticism always fails on close examination.

The bottom line is that anti theists do not understand the Bible because if they did then they would no longer be anti theists. Even if Mr Skeptic from Skeptics dot com has his skeptics interpretation, HE is only ONE person. You have to ignore the testimony of millions if not billions of people and trade that all for the testimony of one person. For me there is more safety in numbers. Rather then to trust in ONE person, it is better to trust in the Church and where they are in agreement today. Even if you reject what they do not agree on, you can still accept what everyone agrees on.

So you do not convince me mr Subduction, because what you say does not have substance or proper authority and is in fact rejected by science itself. There is a overwhelming agreement that Bible skepticism is not true nor accurate. That is why we have authorized translations and interpretations and we have a variety of what is unauthorized and your school of thought represents revisionism along with what is unauthorized and renegade. So for me skeptics MUST have some sort of a hidden agenda because what they represent has nothing of any substance to back it up. They must have a hidden reason why they reject science and the evidence that science provides as to what is accurate and true.

There are a bunch of problems with this statement and while I enjoy a good game of "spot the logical fallacy" I don't think that will be helpful here. Let me instead point put that somehow you have managed to get way off the track of the OP. Discussion about evidence and supporting of positions is valid and useful but the post above does not advance our group discussion on this thread forward in any useful way.
Peace

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

We then need to discuss this then. Among the observable set of facts, we understand that life would be impossible if they were not as they are and in fact, the universe itself might even exist. You are saying that nothing in that statement talks about probabilities nor whether or not it is likely to occur. I take that to mean that you do not agree that it is unlikely?

I need to show my reasoning for claiming it is unlikely. I will provide some links that will support my position. The last one is very informative.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life,” he said. “If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

http://www.universetoday.com/13741/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/

You may as well get a lot friendlier with life on Earth—every microbe and mammal, every bird and bug, and especially every human being. Because when it comes to biology, our planet may be the whole show.

Forget the overwhelming math—those trillions upon trillions of planets that are likely out there, at least some of which should be inhabited. Snuff out the one match head that is life on Earth, and the whole universe goes biologically black. We can search for biology all we want, send up all the here-we-are signal flares we can invent, but the fact is, no one will answer—ever—because no one is there.


Davies, though, goes well beyond the flaws of the equation, arguing that there is a perfectly credible case to be made for the presence of life on Earth as a result of a succession of flukes, each more improbable than the one before it, which, together, could occur only a single time in a trillion trillion tries. A chimp randomly pounding a typewriter might indeed come up withHamlet. Once. It wouldn’t matter if there were 40 billion other chimps hammering away, just as, as Davies has written, it doesn’t matter if there are 40 billion planets in the Milky Way capable of sustaining life. Only a single one will.

http://time.com/3747812/life-in-space-alone/

As for intelligent life, give it time, he said. Though it may be hard to think of it this way, at roughly 14 billion years old, the universe is quite young, he said. The heavy elements that make up planets like Earth were not available in the early universe; instead, they are formed by the stars. Enough of these materials were available to begin forming rocky planets like Earth just 7 billion or 8 billion years ago. When one considers that it took nearly 4 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, it would perhaps not be surprising if intelligence is still rare.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2009-05-life-universe-intelligence.html#jCp

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life is a very improbable phenomenon and likely to be extremely rare. The term "Rare Earth" originates from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, both faculty members at the University of Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

 

[AirPo]

This is based on what they call Oral Tradition going back at least as far as Moses. Actually in the Bible we know that Moses studied learned under his father in law Jethro. This is the same tradition that the Big Bang Theory is based on. So this is FAR FAR FAR more then just a belief and we have all the same evidence for this that we have for the Big Band Theory. So your claim is totally unsubstantiated.

In other words, a belief not really supported by evidence.

evolutionary theory is a myth and a fairy tale with no real science to back it up.

That is not serious in depth discussion.

 

[Athée]

We then need to discuss this then. Among the observable set of facts, we understand that life would be impossible if they were not as they are and in fact, the universe itself might even exist. You are saying that nothing in that statement talks about probabilities nor whether or not it is likely to occur. I take that to mean that you do not agree that it is unlikely?

I need to show my reasoning for claiming it is unlikely. I will provide some links that will support my position. The last one is very informative.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life,” he said. “If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

http://www.universetoday.com/13741/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/

You may as well get a lot friendlier with life on Earth—every microbe and mammal, every bird and bug, and especially every human being. Because when it comes to biology, our planet may be the whole show.

Forget the overwhelming math—those trillions upon trillions of planets that are likely out there, at least some of which should be inhabited. Snuff out the one match head that is life on Earth, and the whole universe goes biologically black. We can search for biology all we want, send up all the here-we-are signal flares we can invent, but the fact is, no one will answer—ever—because no one is there.


Davies, though, goes well beyond the flaws of the equation, arguing that there is a perfectly credible case to be made for the presence of life on Earth as a result of a succession of flukes, each more improbable than the one before it, which, together, could occur only a single time in a trillion trillion tries. A chimp randomly pounding a typewriter might indeed come up withHamlet. Once. It wouldn’t matter if there were 40 billion other chimps hammering away, just as, as Davies has written, it doesn’t matter if there are 40 billion planets in the Milky Way capable of sustaining life. Only a single one will.

http://time.com/3747812/life-in-space-alone/

As for intelligent life, give it time, he said. Though it may be hard to think of it this way, at roughly 14 billion years old, the universe is quite young, he said. The heavy elements that make up planets like Earth were not available in the early universe; instead, they are formed by the stars. Enough of these materials were available to begin forming rocky planets like Earth just 7 billion or 8 billion years ago. When one considers that it took nearly 4 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, it would perhaps not be surprising if intelligence is still rare.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2009-05-life-universe-intelligence.html#jCp

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life is a very improbable phenomenon and likely to be extremely rare. The term "Rare Earth" originates from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, both faculty members at the University of Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

OK here is the thing...we need to have a serious talk about your Internet debate etiquette. When the person across the issue from you asks for clarification and for support for a premise, the correct response is to actively avoid doing either. The next step, of course, is to make a counter demand that they prove a claim they never made and then finish it off with an ad hominim attack. I will expect better from you next time

Seriously though, there is a lot there to read and think about and I have a very busy day today. I will try to post some preliminary thoughts tonight.
Have a great day!

 

[joshua 1 9]

In other words, a belief not really supported by evidence.

We have overwhelming evidence for what we read in the Bible. There is no (nothing, zip, zero) evidence to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Not one skeptic and not one scoffer has ever come up with any evidence at all to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Science does not have all the answers and all the solutions. God does have all the answers and all the solutions that we will ever want or need. Abundantly above and beyond all that we would ever ask or think. There is no risk, there is no gamble, with God everything is a sure thing. God is 100% dependable and accurate. Beyond what the mind is able to understand or comprehend.

 

[Athée]

We have overwhelming evidence for what we read in the Bible. There is no (nothing, zip, zero) evidence to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Not one skeptic and not one scoffer has ever come up with any evidence at all to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Science does not have all the answers and all the solutions. God does have all the answers and all the solutions that we will ever want or need. Abundantly above and beyond all that we would ever ask or think. There is no risk, there is no gamble, with God everything is a sure thing. God is 100% dependable and accurate. Beyond what the mind is able to understand or comprehend.

While I admire your certainty and think you write with conviction, I have to point out again that you are not helping this discussion in any way. What do you think of the issues at hand?

 

[joshua 1 9]

That is not serious in depth discussion.

Actually the *evolution is a myth* is a very serious discussion that has to do with the evidence evolutionists present for evolution. Most of the evidence is comic book style art work. With my 50 years worth of construction experience I know that if you want to actually build something you need more then art work. Someone has to actually do the math and get the math to work before you can build anything at all. Far to often evolutionist just draw a pretty picture that fails to get the job done because there is no math and there is nothing of any substance in the way of evidence for that picture. That means evolution is a myth and little more then nursery stories that we tell our children. That is why when DNA evidence came along it blew a lot of the evolutionary myths out of the water. So what do they do? They make up a whole new myth that has not been falsified yet. Sooner or later we all know the new theory will be falsified just as quick as the old theory was. That is why I showed that horse evolution is a excellent example of this. To this day they present the old falsified theory of horse evolution because the truth that we now have through the study of DNA does not fit into the myth that they like to promote.

 

[joshua 1 9]

While I admire your certainty and think you write with conviction, I have to point out again that you are not helping this discussion in any way. What do you think of the issues at hand?

I am looking more at fine tuning in terms of chemistry, but you can also look at fine tuning as it relates to physics. Either way I pointed out when you want to build something precision is very important in the beginning. I have a friend that is a machinist and he has to work within a millionth tolerance. This is difficult because metal expands and shrinks so they have to maintain control over their environment to maintain their tolerance. As I say over and over again, getting something to work in the real world is a lot different then just drawing pictures and trying to use a comic book to prove your theory. For example, if you want to build a bridge it takes good math, not pretty pictures. Someone has to get it to work in the real world. Someone has to get all the parts and all the pieces to fit together. God is the one that fits and joins us together. There is just not that much room for error. As the Wright bothers found out. If you want to fly you have to get your math right and come up with the right formula or you are NOT going to get it off the ground. There were people with the wrong formula and the wrong math and they did not fly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK here is the thing...we need to have a serious talk about your Internet debate etiquette. When the person across the issue from you asks for clarification and for support for a premise, the correct response is to actively avoid doing either. The next step, of course, is to make a counter demand that they prove a claim they never made and then finish it off with an ad hominim attack. I will expect better from you next time

Silly me.

Seriously though, there is a lot there to read and think about and I have a very busy day today. I will try to post some preliminary thoughts tonight.
Have a great day!

I totally understand. I do too. So we'll do our best. You have a great day as well.

 

[Robert Palase]

I am looking more at fine tuning in terms of chemistry, but you can also look at fine tuning as it relates to physics. Either way I pointed out when you want to build something precision is very important in the beginning. I have a friend that is a machinist and he has to work within a millionth tolerance. This is difficult because metal expands and shrinks so they have to maintain control over their environment to maintain their tolerance. As I say over and over again, getting something to work in the real world is a lot different then just drawing pictures and trying to use a comic book to prove your theory. For example, if you want to build a bridge it takes good math, not pretty pictures. Someone has to get it to work in the real world. Someone has to get all the parts and all the pieces to fit together. God is the one that fits and joins us together. There is just not that much room for error. As the Wright bothers found out. If you want to fly you have to get your math right and come up with the right formula or you are NOT going to get it off the ground. There were people with the wrong formula and the wrong math and they did not fly.

Why are you talking about math and bridges? your ID is based on an entity from the supernatural who you believed talked everything into existence, [why it had to talk is any ones guess] why give earthly examples for supposedly supernatural events?

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have overwhelming evidence for what we read in the Bible. There is no (nothing, zip, zero) evidence to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true.

The bible says rabbits chew their cud. They don't. That's the single example it takes to show that the bible is not 100% accurate.