Fine tuning is a probability argument and I'm pointing out that you don't know the denominator so any probability is meaningless.
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.
I am saying that if they were different the universe would not have existed at all.
That is why it is called fine tuning. They have adjusted the numbers even fractionally and it proves fatal for the universe.
I didn't point that out. There is no evidence for other universes, even if there were other universes we could never know.
Fine tuning doesn't go away even with the multiverse hypothesis.
The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor. The three domains are not ancestral to each other. So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about. Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life. So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA.
...
From what I gather from your posts, you believe everything is evidence for your particular deity.
I said, why did it only arise where where it appears scientifically possible to arise?
Whatever. Yet another unfalsifiable claim.
Do you have anything of scientific significance?
Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God | Francis Collins | Big Think
Francis Collins: "My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didnt exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwins theory that he could have imagined."
Do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?
Why would there be?
No, I am arguing that if things were changed even a small amount, it would not exist at all.
In your worldview or mine?
So what ever I might use to support my view with a priori be dismissed by you?
Because particles have to interact.
That is not what the experts are saying that you are quoting. They are saying that we would have a different universe.
In reality, of which there is only one.
Any empty assertions you use will not be accepted as evidence. Why should it? Why should I accept assertions as evidence?
What has Dr. Collins provided genetically that necessitates anything other than the known three domains of life?
The example of Collins is particularly striking because (1) he is a devout evangelical Christian, (2) he is in a high post in both government and the scientific world, and (3) he is intimately familiar with the human genome. Among other things, you would think his position would dispel nonsense about scientists discriminating against the religious or the theory of evolution being some sort of atheistic conspiracy. The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science. Evolution is the logical conclusion of all the evidence we have available, and there is not one falsifiable theory I have ever seen or read about that can replace it. Not one. And as far as I can tell, no such theory (that is actually constrained by evidence) has even been proposed by either the intelligent design or the creationist camps.I asked, do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?
You know, this guy:
"Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Before being appointed Director of NIH, Collins led the HGP and other pioneering genomics research initiatives as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of NIH's 27 institutes and centers. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as an innovative gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicineand the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science."
Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In your opinion.I know that you think my particular deity is some brand name for a man made belief, but in reality He is God of all.
Unfalsifiable claims on top of unfalsifiable claims.He is your God, you may deny Him but man didn't create Him, He created us. This universe is His. So yes, the universe is evidence of Him. He gives us the ability to see Him in His creation.
Unfalsifiable, as we cannot look back that far back scientifically.However, this does not mean that we can't understand what would falsify that premise if it were untrue. If it was proven (irrefutable evidence) that the universe has always existed,
Unfalsifiable, as one cannot prove a negative in this case.if it was proven that every material element could be seen (visible),
Unfalsifiable, as we have no means of establishing that is what the authors actually meant by that phrase, and you are not just cherry-picking the bible. Are you a floodist? Am I also to provide irrefutable evidence that the global flood did not happen? A literalist? Am I to provide irrefutable evidence that people couldn't live to be hundreds of years old as told in bible stories?if it was shown that there was no stretching or expanding of the universe then these could falsify God's creation of the universe.
The weak anthropic principle. Unfalsifiable, so is no use for you as evidence of design.It is after the fact. It only appears scientifically possible because it already has happened.
Up to now, I presumed you had a basic understanding of evolutionary theory on these topics. I have no particular claim to make or support.I would like to see your falsifiable claim of where mathematics and intelligence arose and what evidence you have to support that claim.
I continue to ask as you continue to throw out these claims.I told you that I had evidence (scientific) to support my "claim" you deny it is of any value. So why do you continue to ask for anything? You will just deny anything I would present outright.
The example of Collins is particularly striking because (1) he is a devout evangelical Christian, (2) he is in a high post in both government and the scientific world, and (3) he is intimately familiar with the human genome. Among other things, you would think his position would dispel nonsense about scientists discriminating against the religious or the theory of evolution being some sort of atheistic conspiracy. The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science. Evolution is the logical conclusion of all the evidence we have available, and there is not one falsifiable theory I have ever seen or read about that can replace it. Not one. And as far as I can tell, no such theory (that is actually constrained by evidence) has even been proposed by either the intelligent design or the creationist camps.
QV please:The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science.
Question: Since when is the Creation scientific?
...
There is no science involved in the Creation Week --- none whatsoever.
I don't think you and I actually disagree (except on the New Testament).
Very true. However, just because particles interact does not presuppose that they must do so consistently or constantly.
If several of the changes were made the universe would not exist. In some of them, there would be a different outcome. We are both correct.
The reality stays the same, it is within our positions that the reality takes on differences. The reality shows evolution but it does not show an absolute certainty of unaided unguided processes.
The evidence stands alone.
In the universes that are different from ours and that do exist there will be unique features in that universe which only those precise combinations of constants can produce. This will be true of every universe that comes to exist. Pointing to that unique feature in no way indicates that the universe was purposefully tweeked to produce that unique feature.
Aren't you presenting a belief here too?
Or are alternate universes proven and observable?
For that matter all life coming from a common ancestor is presenting a belief as well.
The example of Collins is particularly striking because (1) he is a devout evangelical Christian, (2) he is in a high post in both government and the scientific world, and (3) he is intimately familiar with the human genome. Among other things, you would think his position would dispel nonsense about scientists discriminating against the religious or the theory of evolution being some sort of atheistic conspiracy. The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science. Evolution is the logical conclusion of all the evidence we have available, and there is not one falsifiable theory I have ever seen or read about that can replace it. Not one. And as far as I can tell, no such theory (that is actually constrained by evidence) has even been proposed by either the intelligent design or the creationist camps.
I asked, do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?
You know, this guy:
"Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Before being appointed Director of NIH, Collins led the HGP and other pioneering genomics research initiatives as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of NIH's 27 institutes and centers. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as an innovative gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicineand the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science."
Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aren't you presenting a belief here too? Or are alternate universes proven and observable?
For that matter all life coming from a common ancestor is presenting a belief as well.
What predictions have they made? What scientific theories have they proposed and what have they validated? Did they predict anything existing theories did not? There is simply no evidence that creation science exists in any meaningful way.There is only science. The differing branches are called by different names. Those who are doing science with the belief that the Creation Narrative is true do so within the scientific model or at least they should.
The thread is about evolution, is it not? Unlike the (non)existence of multiple universes, evolution is something we can actually test, falsify, measure, and usefully use to make predictions. It is eminently reasonable and always related back to the real world.I don't think there was a question about evolution in the discussion, as far as whether evolution is factual or not.
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?