There you go, shooting before taking aim. You misunderstand my comment as much as you do the argument. I never said that the evidence was bad for evolution. You are creating a straw man and supplying an argument against it.
Upvote
0
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.
There you go, shooting before taking aim. You misunderstand my comment as much as you do the argument. I never said that the evidence was bad for evolution. You are creating a straw man and supplying an argument against it.That is just wrong. And choosing the whale as an example of how "bad" the evidence for evolution is, is quite funny as well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
If you think about it, it's quite amazing how ridiculously detailed our knowledge about the whale ancestry is, considering the timespan we are talking about.
Yey science!
It tells you who is willing to work hard and who is a sluggard. My son graduated high school with a 3.969 grade point average. Not because he is smarter but because he is willing to work harder.
The result was they had to completely rewrite the theory of evolution to match the new information. I am on my third doctor now. Two doctors have retired. When I tell my new doctor what my old doctor advised me often I am told they do not do that anymore. They use to recommend that but they do not recommend that anymore. Yet they always have lots of confidence they are giving you good advice but time does not always support that.
Sure that makes sense, but taking just this universe and the improbable events compounded upon each other with the outcome of intelligent life is stretching credibility. What comes from this answer is saying the universe exists, we exist, so it is not surprising. Well yes, it isn't surprising that life exists if we just look at life existing. However, if you look at how this was accomplished and what specific and independent events had to happen for it to exist then it becomes apparent that claiming chance just happened to allow life seems overly naive. Not that you are naive, but the argument is naive as it doesn't account for the improbability of each event to accomplish the outcome.I agree with you that the universe as it currently exists, permits life (obviously).
I agree with you that if at the big bang some parameters had different values that this particular universe would not have formed.
What I am waiting for is evidence that supports your premise, a rewrite of the premise or a removal of the premise.
Maybe we are talking past each other and I can make my list clearly by taking a more assertive stance.
As far as I know we are only aware of 1 universe. The number of universes with life in them is also 1. Therfore when we divide the number of universes by the number of universes with life the answer is going to be 1/1= 1. 1 out of 1 universes have life. How is this "intrinsically unlikely", what evidence do you have to support that position?
I agree with Francis Collins science. This is what we should teach in our public schools. A lot more people are accepting of Collins than what are accepting of someone like Kent Hovind.He says he agrees with francis collins.
Do I take it then that you agree your first premise has not met it's burden of proof?Sure that makes sense
So you would have no problems going to a doctor that finished last in his class as long as he has a medical license? This does not even get into the number of doctors and nurses that become drug addicts.Getting a medical license is about proving you meet certain standards and these standards are quite stringent.
Where one finishes in their class, doesnt tell the whole story.
Sure that makes sense, but taking just this universe and the improbable events compounded upon each other with the outcome of intelligent life is stretching credibility. What comes from this answer is saying the universe exists, we exist, so it is not surprising. Well yes, it isn't surprising that life exists if we just look at life existing. However, if you look at how this was accomplished and what specific and independent events had to happen for it to exist then it becomes apparent that claiming chance just happened to allow life seems overly naive. Not that you are naive, but the argument is naive as it doesn't account for the improbability of each event to accomplish the outcome.
I will take a shot at rewriting what I think your argument is but please correct me where I get it wrong...as I have said before I am too busy to waste time defeating straw men (even those of my own devising! )1. A intelligent life supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely.
2. A powerful and intelligent Creator who wanted such a universe for the purpose of intelligent beings would explain it.
3. So the fact that we have such a universe makes it more likely that there was a powerful and Intelligent Creator to fine tune the universe to produce such beings.
Nah, I think there is proof. Let's see what you feel unlikely or improbable would mean to you?Do I take it then that you agree your first premise has not met it's burden of proof?
If you could rewrite your argument with the premises that you want to move forward with that would be great.
I've provided information on the math and so far, no physicist/astrophysicist has shown it incorrect. I don't have to calculate the odds it has been done for me and the majority of the scientists in the field agree with it.The problem is that you have no idea on how to calculate the odds. In fact almost every odds argument that I have seen can be refuted without using any math at all. The anti-science person generally tends to use a strawman description of what is happening. Once you show that their premise is wrong the whole argument falls apart.
I think that is pretty much it, except you have neglected to show that the universe itself would not exist if some of the fundamental constants were changed even in the slightest way. There are constants that are necessary for the universe to exist as well as the life we see on earth. So my statement stands as I wrote it.Just to be clear I am not trying to be passive aggressive, asking you to restate your argument. The way you initially wrote it is :
I will take a shot at rewriting what I think your argument is but please correct me where I get it wrong...as I have said before I am too busy to waste time defeating straw men (even those of my own devising! )
P1. Life as we know it requires a universe with an extremely narrow set of values for a number of parameters and properties.
P2. The values (p1) of our universe could have been different.
P3. The probability of the set of values we observe in our universe is too small to resonably be considered a chance occurrence.
Therfore these values (p1) must have some organizing principle (p3).
P4. Yaweh''s will is a possible organizing principle.
P5. Yaweh''s will is the best explanation for the specific values we observe (p1,p3)
Therfore, to the extent that Yaweh's will is a better explnation of the availbe data than competing hypotheses, the observed set of values and properties (p1) is evidence that Yaweh exists.
I know I am putting words in your mouth so feel free as awlys to tell me where you would structure the argument differently
"On the largest scales, we've mapped the whole sky -- the cosmic microwave background -- and measured the evolution of the universe, the way it's changing, the way it's expanding ... and these discoveries reveal that the universe is astonishingly simple," he said. "In other words you can describe the structure of the universe, its geometry, and the density of matter ... you can essentially describe all that with just one number."
Many of the physicists that are looking to the multiverse understand that if they can't come up with a reasonable explanation for the fine tuning God is it.
Paul Davies says that one of the motivations behind the multiverse hypothesis was to make a way to finally get rid of God.
Actually it is due to this being a very valid and supported argument for God
This is just head in the sand reasoning.
Depends on how you look at it I guess.So much for 30 finely tuned constants, I guess. Or perhaps this is talking about something totally different from the subject at hand. Either way, it doesn't do much for your case.
If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 1010123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. (not sure how to write this on my chromebook)
A change in the cosmological constant in its value by a mere 1 part in 10120 parts would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly. In either case, the universe would, again, be life-prohibiting. (Same thing, don't know who to show the number correctly on chromebook.)
Sure that makes sense, but taking just this universe and the improbable events
I've provided information on the math and so far, no physicist/astrophysicist has shown it incorrect. I don't have to calculate the odds it has been done for me and the majority of the scientists in the field agree with it.
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?