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.
I have to ask, So? Do you have to know how life began to understand evolution?As it is not known how universes form, it is not known how these constants obtain the value that they have.
As it is not known how they obtain the value that they have, it is impossible to calculate the probability of them having the value that they have.
How do you test to see if whale ancestors were whale ancestors? We can't reproduce anything in a lab that tells us, so how do we know?Then what DID you mean when you said that there is no testable data to determine what the ancestral bloodline of whales looks like?
No one can even agree on the science of fine tuning. So far there has been a lack of agreement with scientists on the issue.31 pages and we still haven't got past "We don't know, therefore God".
In the beginning was a marriage. The bond between Atoms is very much like a marriage and the first marriage for man was Adam and Eve. A chemical bond is a lasting attraction between atoms that enables the formation of chemical compounds. There are strong bonds and weak bonds. So we are strong in Christ.I have to ask, So? Do you have to know how life began to understand evolution?
This makes me smile. From your responses you ask me that? It seems you have been responding with a lack of knowledge on the subject and then point to me claiming I don't. Paul Davies is a top scientist in his field. There is what is called peer-review in the world of science. There is a conclusion based on WHAT IS KNOWN about the fundamental constants of our universe. The information THAT IS KNOWN is what scientists in the field use to determine that they are fine tuned. It isn't taken on faith.Do you not have any good reason to think he is correct? Or did you just take it on faith?
Did you read it?If you just want to pretend the evidence is there that's fine. Hope it makes you feel better. You're only fooling yourself, though.
Maybe they're fine tuning their science to eventually say the universe wasn't created fine tuned?So far there has been a lack of agreement with scientists on the issue.
Yes, they have a very good idea about how they could be different.Which kinda goes back to the whole argument from ignorance, god of the gaps objection. No one has any idea if the various constants could be different and if they could be, how different they were likely to be. It's all just guesswork - and yet some people are convinced it must be god. And not just god, but the particular god that just happens to be the majority religious belief where they grew up. What a coincidence.
Now lets not join in on the derogatory remarks, my friend.Maybe they're fine tuning their science to eventually say the universe wasn't created fine tuned?
Of course, all they would have to do is say the universe wasn't created, and that would settle it with them.
But they have to look busy at something, or they'll lose funds.
SETI is an excellent example.
Oh, awright!Now lets not join in on the derogatory remarks, my friend.
That is not what I said.
Do you think that they hold that opinion due to bias or due to evidence that supports that opinion? The evidence for fine tuning is what they are using to determine the improbability of it all. Here is an analogy I thought was on point:The quotes are interesting to be sure but they are still just opinion. Maybe somewhere these scientists have actual evidence to support their statements of belief and that is what we need to evaluate. If I quote an atheist scientist who said "I think it most probable that no intelligence designed our universe " and provided no further support you would ask me for evidence not just opinion.
As far as I am aware we simply don't know if the values that permit our kind of universe to exist are likely or not. We only have a sample size of 1 and unless you can provide evidence for the multiverse then our universe is all we have. Thus, so far as we know, the chances of a universe having the specific values we observe is 1 in 1.
Yes. I am not talking actual individuals.Yes it is:
The point is that there is no actual testable data that shows in a lab what actual ancestors gave rise to the whale
btw: i'm still operating under the assumptinon that by "ancestors" you mean general ancestral bloodlines; ancestral species; and not actual individuals, as in a breeding pair - please correct me if that is a wrong assumption.
I have to ask, So?
Do you have to know how life began to understand evolution?
No one can even agree on the science of fine tuning.
??????????????
If you don't have the information required to be able to do the probability calculation...then how in the world can you make any assessment regarding the probability of it????
No. But you have to understand how life can originate to calculate the probability of it originating.
See? That's how that works..
More fundamentally, the most that follows from a constant-free theory is this: if you want to consider different universes, you will need to consider different laws, not just different constants in the same laws.
So, rather than talking about the fine-tuning of the constants, we would consider the fine-tuning of the symmetries and abstract principles. Could it be just a lucky coincidence that they produce in our universe the properties and interactions required by complex structures such as life?
This notion “really strains credulity,” according to Frank Wilczek, who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics with David Gross. And as Bernard Carr and Martin Rees wrote in the conclusion of an influential early paper on the fine-tuning problem, “it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.”
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?