What evolution does NOT explain

[Hydra009]

"How exactly does the Anthropic Principle disprove evolution?"

I dont think it dispoves evolution, it just shows how much more reasonable it is to believe that there is a God who created everything, then to be atheistic.

Which is why I mentioned GA. This has nothing to do with evolution at all.

Ah evos standard response number 2 evasion. "you got us on this one so we are going to evade the issue, ignore it and pretend it does not exist"

Whatever, John. You got me. You see, your belief that there had to be some sort of Christian creator God simply because the physical laws of the universe that we live in allows life COMPLETELY DESTROYS EVOLUTION. I just can't argue with your superior logic.

 

[Big Rob]

No there are not a infinite number of choices, that is not true. Only on a very superficial level. When you get down to the nuts and the bolts it can all only fit together one way.

You keep saying this, but never give evidence. Please do so.

 

[JohnR7]

It is more logical to believe that the universe was caused by an all powerful God,

I have no problem with the idea that God created the elements. But my point is that no matter where the elements come from, evolutionary theory DOES NOT explain how they all fit together. Physics governs the universe, not biology.

 

[JohnR7]

You keep saying this, but never give evidence. Please do so.

Your kidding me right, you want me to actually give you a lesson in phycics?

 

[Big Rob]

I have no problem with the idea that God created the elements. But my point is that no matter where the elements come from, evolutionary theory DOES NOT explain how they all fit together. Physics governs the universe, not biology.

Then why are you asking it to, and when you don't get the answer assume that it has been falsified?!

 

[Big Rob]

Your kidding me right, you want me to actually give you a lesson in phycics?

You keep implying that there's only one (or at least very few possible) combinations that will yield life, and yet you seem to think that important constants such as the nuclear forces can simply take on arbitrary values. I want you to support this or shut up about it.

 

[JohnR7]

You see, your belief that there had to be some sort of Christian creator God simply because the physical laws of the universe that we live in allows life COMPLETELY DESTROYS EVOLUTION. I just can't argue with your superior logic.

I said nothing about where the physical laws come from. We assume the physical laws exist and evolutionary theory far to often would be a violation of those physical laws. I have been saying this all along.

 

[corvus_corax]

Evolution maybe a part of this fine tuning adjustment process. But it does not in anyway explain the beginning or origin of a species or anything else.

Yay! You almost got it right!
It does explain the origin of species.
It does not, AND WAS NEVER MEANT TO explain the origin of "anything else".
WTG! You're getting closer to understanding what evolutionary theory actually DOES explain.

I have no problem with the idea that God created the elements. But my point is that no matter where the elements come from, evolutionary theory DOES NOT explain how they all fit together. Physics governs the universe, not biology.

WTG again!!! Evolutionary theory IS NOT MEANT to explain how the elements fit together.
Yay for JohnR7!

Using evolution to try to explain how the elements fit together is like using germ theory to explain Relativity.

Its not even apples and oranges.
Its apples and donkeys.

 

[Lonnie]

"You keep implying that there's only one (or at least very few possible) combinations that will yield life"

Actualy it is estimated that there is a 1 out 10^138 chance that life would be possible on any planet in the universe. There is an estimated 10^78 atoms in the universe.

So, what would you say is more logical, to believe there is an all powerful God who created every thing. Or would you believe that the possiblity for life came around by chance(1 to 10^138)?

PS Those odds, are for the possibilty that could exist in the universe. Not chances that universe, and everything else could come into being.

 

[Big Rob]

"You keep implying that there's only one (or at least very few possible) combinations that will yield life"

Actualy it is estimated that there is a 1 out 10^138 chance that life would be possible on any planet in the universe.

Really? Got a link, as well as the journal in which this was published?

 

[random_guy]

While Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion explain how 2 bodies move under the influence of gravity, it does not explain why gravity force is inversely proportional to the distance squared. If this force was more or less, the entire universe couldn't form as it is today.

Proof of a higher being.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Because physics trumps biology

Ace of Spades


BOOK!

 

[Lonnie]

"Got a link, as well as the journal in which this was published?"

You did not answer my question, but I will answer yours.

I do not have a link, and i dont have a journal that it was published in. I read it out of a book("I dont have enough faith to be an atheist"). But I do have the guy's name who came up with those figures, he is Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

I can look for a link, and published materials about him, and his caculations, but you could those things just as easily. (also, I need to be getting around to some work that I have been procrastinating...)

 

[notto]

"Got a link, as well as the journal in which this was published?"

You did not answer my question, but I will answer yours.

I do not have a link, and i dont have a journal that it was published in. I read it out of a book("I dont have enough faith to be an atheist"). But I do have the guy's name who came up with those figures, he is Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

I can look for a link, and published materials about him, and his caculations, but you could those things just as easily. (also, I need to be getting around to some work that I have been procrastinating...)

His calculations would also show that you, Lonnie, can not exist based on the probability of you ever existing in the first place. Do you exist?

 

[Big Rob]

You did not answer my question,

You mean about which is more logical? It is not at all logical to suppose that an omnipotent being exists simply because something is as yet unexplained. I'm perfectly content to say I don't know everything, but I'm not going to ascribe supernatural explanations to them just so I don't have to accidentaly learn something.

I do not have a link, I read it out of a book(I dont have enough faith to be an atheist). But I do have the guy's name who came up with those figures, he is Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

What I'm actually interested in is a peer reviewed science journal containing these calculations as well as the reasoning behind it. Call me paranoid, but that book doesn't sound like it's a model of objectivity.

 

[caravelair]

fine-tuning arguments are such complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Big Rob]

fine-tuning arguments are such complete and utter nonsense.

It's amazing how people can actually see this as a valid argument. It would be funny if it weren't so depressing.

 

[caravelair]

It's amazing how people can actually see this as a valid argument.

well i can certainly understand how it seems valid to some people. but as soon as you apply any scrutiny the argument falls apart.

 

[llDayo]

The universe maintains a very delicate balance in order for life to form as we know it. If the nuclear force were 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger we would not have any life at all, anywere in the universe. NOT just life as we know it, but no life at all.

Wrong. The universe wouldn't exist as we know it, that's right, but it may exist in another form and you have no evidence to state that life wouldn't form. Life wouldn't be the same as it in our universe, but it could exist in a totally different form. How do you know that the way the original speck of matter or whatever was the starting point could only have expanded in one form?

Forces that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory play a far greater roll in life forming itself. Esp. forming itself the way it is. If a delicate balance is not maintained then the elements needed to create life simply would not exist and there would be no life. There would be no carbon, oxygen, nitrogen & phosphorus. Even if these elements were to exist, if a delicate balance were not maintained they could not form themselves into life. If a neutron were just 0.1% more massive then elements essential for life would not be able to form.

Yes, OUR version of life. Another version of life would most likely take its place.

Fred Hoyle has written extensively against theism and christianity, yet when he discovered the incredible fine tuning of the universe in the late 1970's & early 1980's he wrote:



One must "monkey" with the physics of the universe to get all the right elements to work together for life of any sort to take place. Once the elements have formed themselves into any sort of life the universe and nature must continue to adjust itself and maintain a delicate balance for life to continue. All of this has to take place before evolution could ever become a factor to consider.

Evolution maybe a part of this fine tuning adjustment process. But it does not in anyway explain the beginning or origin of a species or anything else.

Beautiful, so Fred Hoyle didn't understand the Theory of Evolution either? Wonderful.

 

[Lonnie]

So, Big Bob.

You believe that "Nothing caused the universe and everything in it" is more logical than, "Something caused the universe and everything in it"?