The fine tuning of the universe.

[pat34lee]

Then you'd have to ask people that know me.

Does that mean you don't know what they
would say about you?

 

[bhsmte]

I read his whole book which means I do not consider him to be a waste of time. I underline as I go so I know what books I read and what books I have not read. Let me open his book and grab something Collins asks: "If God created the universe, and the laws that govern it, and if He endowed human beings with intellectual abilities to discern it's workings, would God want us to disregard those abilities?"

Read what he says about the science behind the TOE and get back with us.

 

[bhsmte]

ok if you say so. Just how do we determine how good their reputation is?

Talking with those who know best, those in the medical community.

 

[Hoghead1]

No that is NOT true. I used the illustration of horse evolution as an example. I studied drafting and design in college & I know the difference between drafting a design and art. I know what you can build in the real world and what you can NOT build. The many many drawings for horse evolution does not represent horse evolution at all. Here is an article that will explain this to you. For those that really want to know the truth. What we find is that the study of DNA has shown us that a lot of what we thought we knew about evolution was simply not true. https://smoodock45.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/the-evolution-of-the-horse/

It makes no difference what you studied in college. The material you studied has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[AirPo]

Does that mean you don't know what they
would say about you?

Of course not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You once again fail. The burden of proof is upon you to show that you are right and you have not come close. You have not even really "shown the math". What you have done is to misinterpret the work of scientists and many others have pointed that out to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is that there is no actual testable data that shows in a lab what actual ancestors gave rise to the whale.

The point is that you're wrong about that.

Unless you are talking about pinpointing literal individuals, but I'm gonna go ahead and not insult your intelligence by making such an assumption.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

How did you determine it to be "improbable"? That was the question being asked, but you're again just repeating that claim.

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.

Why?

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.

How did you determine them to be improbable again?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree with Francis Collins science.

Then why do you constantly post stuff that flies in the face of the science that Collins stands firmly behind?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now these are just two example of the 30 or so fine tuned fundamental constants and their astronomical improbability on just chance.

You have not shown that these are improbable.
You have just stated what the values are and what role they seem to play in the workings of physics.

You have not shown that they are improbable. You have not even shown they could be anything other then what they are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Then what DID you mean when you said that there is no testable data to determine what the ancestral bloodline of whales looks like?

 

[Jimmy D]

31 pages and we still haven't got past "We don't know, therefore God".

 

[KCfromNC]

Ask Paul Davies, he is the one that said it and I said he said it.

Do you not have any good reason to think he is correct? Or did you just take it on faith?

 

[KCfromNC]

I've given links. If you find a problem with them then present it.

Yes, the problem is your links don't answer the question I'm asking. I'm trying to figure out if you know this and are trying to pull one over on the rest of us or if you just haven't read the material.

 

[KCfromNC]

If we had a reason for the inability for them to be different we wouldn't be considering the issue at all.

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you are not going to read the information I provide, fine but don't keep asking for something I've already provided.

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

How did you determine them to be improbable again?

Some people who also believe in god[*] said so. What more do you need?

* - hope they believe in the same god. How embarrassing would it be to take them on faith and later learn that they are Jewish or pantheist or something obviously wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You once again fail. The burden of proof is upon you to show that you are right and you have not come close. You have not even really "shown the math". What you have done is to misinterpret the work of scientists and many others have pointed that out to you.

I provided the link that had it. If you missed it go and look.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then what DID you mean when you said that there is no testable data to determine what the ancestral bloodline of whales looks like?

That is not what I said.