|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ralph
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in the US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if they had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious doctrines in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
|
Non sequitur. Answer the damn post, Dan! Are theists attempting to limit
scientific inquiry? The answer is yes, nothing more needs to be said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mFbdk.12914$1I.3749@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:saga741gprh2rqb4a6fsrat6q1sg4q2ct8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:33:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious doctrines
in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
The anti-science crowd invents fake colleges like Bob Jones.
So, you are saying that Churches have never founded real colleges.
BTW Bob Jones is a family owned private university started in
1927 by Bob Jones Sr. It is a concertive Christian school.
But it is accredited.
|
Stick your head a little further in the sand, Dan, your butt is still too
low! Of course churches founded institutions of learning. Of course half of
Americans don't think evolution is a sound scientific theory. Of course 25%
of Americans believe that snakes talk, trees grow abstracts and Adam and Eve
were real people. These same people believe the earth was once totally
flooded and eight people floated with hundreds of thousands of animals for a
year.
If am surprised you passed your biology courses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:17:23 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<mFbdk.12914$1I.3749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:saga741gprh2rqb4a6fsrat6q1sg4q2ct8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:33:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious doctrines in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
The anti-science crowd invents fake colleges like Bob Jones.
So, you are saying that Churches have never founded real colleges.
|
I never said any such thing.
| Quote: |
BTW Bob Jones is a family owned private university started in
1927 by Bob Jones Sr. It is a concertive Christian school.
But it is accredited.
|
Not by a real accrediting agency. All I see is that they are accredited
by TRACS, a religious front designed to allow them to be in compliance
with federal financial aid statutes, not evidence of commitment to
quality education.
Colleges that care about education get accredited by their local
regional accreditation association. In the case of SC that would be
Southern. <http://www.sacscoc.org> Bob Jones does not appear to be found
anywhere there.
It's a waste of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:h2ja7415qdopdntsusqp43eeuvqu5b57s1@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:17:23 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
mFbdk.12914$1I.3749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:saga741gprh2rqb4a6fsrat6q1sg4q2ct8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:33:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door
that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious doctrines
in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
The anti-science crowd invents fake colleges like Bob Jones.
So, you are saying that Churches have never founded real colleges.
I never said any such thing.
BTW Bob Jones is a family owned private university started in
1927 by Bob Jones Sr. It is a concertive Christian school.
But it is accredited.
Not by a real accrediting agency. All I see is that they are accredited
by TRACS, a religious front designed to allow them to be in compliance
with federal financial aid statutes, not evidence of commitment to
quality education.
Ok, I agree, but this was off subject, since the topic was church founded |
colleges, not private colleges.
Nevertheless, there were many reputable colleges and universities founded
by both Protestant and Catholic Churches.
| Quote: |
Colleges that care about education get accredited by their local
regional accreditation association. In the case of SC that would be
Southern. <http://www.sacscoc.org> Bob Jones does not appear to be found
anywhere there.
It's a waste of money. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:22:26 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<%Acdk.24743$PZ6.18059@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:h2ja7415qdopdntsusqp43eeuvqu5b57s1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:17:23 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
mFbdk.12914$1I.3749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:saga741gprh2rqb4a6fsrat6q1sg4q2ct8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:33:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door
that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious doctrines
in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
The anti-science crowd invents fake colleges like Bob Jones.
So, you are saying that Churches have never founded real colleges.
I never said any such thing.
BTW Bob Jones is a family owned private university started in
1927 by Bob Jones Sr. It is a concertive Christian school.
But it is accredited.
Not by a real accrediting agency. All I see is that they are accredited
by TRACS, a religious front designed to allow them to be in compliance
with federal financial aid statutes, not evidence of commitment to
quality education.
Ok, I agree, but this was off subject, since the topic was church founded
colleges, not private colleges.
|
You were the one who claimed it was accredited. It may be a privately
owned profit center of the Jones family, I have no idea, but it
certainly markets itself as a religious college.
| Quote: |
Nevertheless, there were many reputable colleges and universities founded
by both Protestant and Catholic Churches.
|
And the real colleges are accredited by real accreditation agencies, not
accreditation mills created to defraud students and the federal
government. I never said that every college founded by every religious
organization was a fraud. Why did you imply that?
I respect most colleges that happen to have religious roots, many of
which are still affiliated with church bodies. What I don't respect is
fraudulent religious indoctrination centers which parade as colleges and
hide behind TRACS to steal money from the Feds and their students.
| Quote: |
Colleges that care about education get accredited by their local
regional accreditation association. In the case of SC that would be
Southern. <http://www.sacscoc.org> Bob Jones does not appear to be found
anywhere there.
It's a waste of money.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:sena745obdfsmgj7m1g8t0dhr064u86n8j@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:22:26 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
%Acdk.24743$PZ6.18059@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:h2ja7415qdopdntsusqp43eeuvqu5b57s1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:17:23 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
mFbdk.12914$1I.3749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:saga741gprh2rqb4a6fsrat6q1sg4q2ct8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:33:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in
the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if
they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door
that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious
doctrines
in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that
wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and
they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
The anti-science crowd invents fake colleges like Bob Jones.
So, you are saying that Churches have never founded real colleges.
I never said any such thing.
BTW Bob Jones is a family owned private university started in
1927 by Bob Jones Sr. It is a concertive Christian school.
But it is accredited.
Not by a real accrediting agency. All I see is that they are accredited
by TRACS, a religious front designed to allow them to be in compliance
with federal financial aid statutes, not evidence of commitment to
quality education.
Ok, I agree, but this was off subject, since the topic was church founded
colleges, not private colleges.
You were the one who claimed it was accredited. It may be a privately
owned profit center of the Jones family, I have no idea, but it
certainly markets itself as a religious college.
Nevertheless, there were many reputable colleges and universities founded
by both Protestant and Catholic Churches.
And the real colleges are accredited by real accreditation agencies, not
accreditation mills created to defraud students and the federal
government. I never said that every college founded by every religious
organization was a fraud. Why did you imply that?
This was more in line with me questioning.
I respect most colleges that happen to have religious roots, many of
which are still affiliated with church bodies. What I don't respect is
fraudulent religious indoctrination centers which parade as colleges and
hide behind TRACS to steal money from the Feds and their students.
Colleges that care about education get accredited by their local
regional accreditation association. In the case of SC that would be
Southern. <http://www.sacscoc.org> Bob Jones does not appear to be found
anywhere there.
It's a waste of money.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dkzck.19525$LL4.11287@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
argument critical to the design inference and the Anthropic Principle
which had not been presented in these threads many times before.
Since they are so frequently employed by those who are adverse
to the idea of supernatural "design" it appears these arguments
are stock -- stock critiques.
Not all of his arguments are negative. A few of his points seemed
somewhat supportive, rather than exactly critical.
I found his criticisms fell into four examples: He stated,
(exact quotes):
"Let us examine the implicit assumptions here.
1) First and fatal to the design argument all by itself, is wholly
unwarranted assumption that only _one_type_of_life_is_possible_."
2) "Still, we cannot rule out other forms of matter than molecules in
the universe as building blocks of complex systems. While atomic
nuclei, for example do not exibit the diversity and complexity seen in
the way atoms assemble into molecular structures, perhaps they might
be able to do so in a universe with different properities and laws."
3) "We cannot assume that life would have been impossible in our
universe had the physical laws been different."
4) "AN INFINITY of UNIVERSES
We have shown that conditions that might support some
form of life in a random universe are not improbable. Indeed,
we can know of one universe, and that that universe has life, so
the 'measured' probability is 100 percent, arbeit with a large
statistical uncertainity. This rebuts a myth that has appeared
frequently in the design literature and is indicated by Barrow
and Tipler's opinion (c), that only a multiple - universes
scenario can explain the coincidences without a supernatural
creator. (Swinburne, 1990). Multi - universes are certainly a
possible explanation, but a multitude of other, different
universes is not the sole naturalistic explanation available for
the particular structure of our universe."
| Quote: |
There was one common thread running through each of these |
critiques. It's what I've heard called hopeful conjecture.
| Quote: |
Example 1 - The expressed hopelul conjecture here |
implies that other types of life might be possible. Yet not
one shread of evidence is offered to support these
hopeful other life types. Yet this hopeful conjecture is
supposidly _fatal_ to the design concept.
Example: 2 - Expresses the hope that some other forms
of matter than molecules can create building blocks in order to
make complex systems.
"We cannot rule out other forms of matter..". - "perhaps
(these hypothecial molecules) might be able to assemble
complexity in a universe with different properties and laws.
But again no supporting evidence and no examples of other
forms of matter. He didn't mention it but there is evidence
of negative matter.
Example 3 - Expressed hopeful conjecture implies that had the
physical laws been different, life could still be possible. But
no examples of what type of life and no discussion as to
which laws could be different. And no supporting evidence.
Example 4 - Infinite universes is a standard, stock "explanation"
frequently employed by critics. The claim, "We have shown that
conditions that might support some form of life in a random
universe are not improbable", does not demonstrate that such
conditions does or could exist. So, it's hopeful conjecture,
since no such life in any random universe has been observed.
It's little more than wishful thinking. I have called these science
fiction universes. Appealing to science fiction in a search for
alternative explanations hardly gives credence to explanations
derived from imagionary universes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xsedk.23870$3F5.2800@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dkzck.19525$LL4.11287@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Dan, you might be interested in Stenger's views on the anthropic
coincidences. I think you will find that the two of you disagree on the
source and also the magnitudes of the coincidences. In case you aren't
familiar with Stenger I would suggest you take a few moments of your time
and read about them.
Good reading:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf#search=%22Fine%20tuned%20universe%22
After reading this article twice, I was hard pressed to find any
argument critical to the design inference and the Anthropic Principle
which had not been presented in these threads many times before.
Since they are so frequently employed by those who are adverse
to the idea of supernatural "design" it appears these arguments
are stock -- stock critiques.
|
You consider them 'stock' because they are valid views of the anthropic
coincidences and are used by those whose ideas are scientific and not
religious.
| Quote: |
Not all of his arguments are negative. A few of his points seemed
somewhat supportive, rather than exactly critical.
|
Can you say equivocate???? Please define 'exactly' critical for me. Is this
the reply where you were going to show where Dr. Stenger was wrong? Wow, for
a man of your limited science ability you have a warped view of scientific
refutation.
| Quote: |
I found his criticisms fell into four examples: He stated,
(exact quotes):
"Let us examine the implicit assumptions here.
1) First and fatal to the design argument all by itself, is wholly
unwarranted assumption that only _one_type_of_life_is_possible_."
2) "Still, we cannot rule out other forms of matter than molecules in
the universe as building blocks of complex systems. While atomic
nuclei, for example do not exibit the diversity and complexity seen in
the way atoms assemble into molecular structures, perhaps they might
be able to do so in a universe with different properities and laws."
3) "We cannot assume that life would have been impossible in our
universe had the physical laws been different."
4) "AN INFINITY of UNIVERSES
We have shown that conditions that might support some
form of life in a random universe are not improbable. Indeed,
we can know of one universe, and that that universe has life, so
the 'measured' probability is 100 percent, arbeit with a large
statistical uncertainity. This rebuts a myth that has appeared
frequently in the design literature and is indicated by Barrow
and Tipler's opinion (c), that only a multiple - universes
scenario can explain the coincidences without a supernatural
creator. (Swinburne, 1990). Multi - universes are certainly a
possible explanation, but a multitude of other, different
universes is not the sole naturalistic explanation available for
the particular structure of our universe."
There was one common thread running through each of these
critiques. It's what I've heard called hopeful conjecture.
|
I would say that the man holding a view of a supernatural entity creating
the universe is the one with the conjecture problem.
| Quote: |
Example 1 - The expressed hopelul conjecture here
implies that other types of life might be possible. Yet not
one shread of evidence is offered to support these
hopeful other life types. Yet this hopeful conjecture is
supposidly _fatal_ to the design concept.
|
Yet not the first modicum exists for your 'deity' and you have no problem
whatsoever in accepting it, hook, line and sinker. Please tell me why you
think that this is the only life and this is the only universe we have. Show
your evidence. As a creationist, as you are, once told me, all I have to do
is provide the possibility. You have to show that life can't exist.
As Dr. Stenger says, The design proponent has the burden of proving that no
other form of life is possible.
| Quote: |
Example: 2 - Expresses the hope that some other forms
of matter than molecules can create building blocks in order to
make complex systems.
"We cannot rule out other forms of matter..". - "perhaps
(these hypothecial molecules) might be able to assemble
complexity in a universe with different properties and laws.
But again no supporting evidence and no examples of other
forms of matter.
|
Can you rule out the possibility? Stenger said given the known laws of
physics and chemistry, we can easily imagine life based on silicon
(computers, the Internet?) or other elements chemically similar to carbon.
These still require cooking in stars and thus a universe old enough for star
evolution. The N1 = N2 coincidence would still hold in this case, although
the anthropic principle would have to be renamed the "cyberthropic"
principle, or some such, with computers rather than humans, bacteria, and
cockroaches the purpose of existence. Only hydrogen, helium, and lithium
were synthesized in the early big bang.
I am beginning to question your reading methods. What is silicon?
| Quote: |
He didn't mention it but there is evidence of negative matter.
|
So? Just who supports this theory of negative matter? As Dr. Stenger says,
in my 50 years as a physicist I have never heard of negative matter.
Again you are trying to throw the burden of proof on my shoulders, a typical
theist tactic that simply fails because the theist is making the less
parsimonious assumptions.
| Quote: |
Example 3 - Expressed hopeful conjecture implies that had the
physical laws been different, life could still be possible. But
no examples of what type of life and no discussion as to
which laws could be different. And no supporting evidence.
|
He just made a statement that said we cannot assume that life on earth would
have been impossible if the constants had been different. Can you dispute
the substance of his statement? Let's look at what he said: I do not dispute
that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the
constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot
prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of
constants. But anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one
conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
Read his last sentence.
If you need it dumbed-down for you I'll try to find
someone who can get that low.
| Quote: |
Example 4 - Infinite universes is a standard, stock "explanation"
frequently employed by critics. The claim, "We have shown that
conditions that might support some form of life in a random
universe are not improbable", does not demonstrate that such
conditions does or could exist. So, it's hopeful conjecture,
since no such life in any random universe has been observed.
It's little more than wishful thinking. I have called these science
fiction universes. Appealing to science fiction in a search for
alternative explanations hardly gives credence to explanations
derived from imagionary universes.
|
Infinite universes is a concept that was around many years before the
theists jumped on the ID bandwagon. Multiple universes are the solution to
many cosmology questions and the mathematics for them are a result of Guth's
inflationary theory. Your idea of science fiction and real science appear to
have no separation, probably because you view god as a real substance and
are thus unable to separate science and science fiction. Inflation cosmology
has and will have many surprises for us, but as your buddy Rees says,
multiple universes are a consequence of inflationary cosmology. Again
Stenger says, since well established cosmology predicts more universes, that
is again the more parsimonious assumption. You have the burden of proving
why there should be only one universe.
This is an almost pointless discussion between us. It goes back to the
puddle. We exist because the universe has certain properties. The universe
wasn't created to accommodate us. We adapted to the universe. This is just
another example of theists attempting to hi-jack science for their god. This
will fail just as most ID claims have fallen. See Kitzmiller vs Dover BOE
for a real look at the field of Intelligent Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry k
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Alxdk.24309$Xe.17761@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34c8f997-46f0-42e4-b412-d3ccab191618@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 2:33 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e931453-87de-4850-91f8-309dd41ce688@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
On Jul 8, 4:17 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kKQck.23174$3F5.20476@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AhNck.22841$Xe.16037@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:df9829e6-a481-48fb-81e3-6db117f837cb@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 1:29 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9185c3d1-3be0-41a7-ac68-374543fd7d08@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 6:20 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:i6a27495gedtina1v985pksd554fpmq3im@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:36:09 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the
parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K..
you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support
your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the
constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you
agree,
what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are
fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
Just by calling it fine tuned, you imply teleology. The
parameters
are
what they are.
Your claim about astronomers is unsupported by evidence.
What do you disagree with: fine tuning or that many astronomers
accept fine tuning?
If you are scientific minded, you will know any system, be it
solar,
be it chemicals, they will all be fine tuned with each
interacting
components, and settled to a final optimum result.
Where is the element of fine tuning?
Are you saying that the moon is put in place by your creator?
I've said _nothing_ at all about the moon. And no, I don't think
the moon was physically positioned in place by my "creator".- Hide
quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
You can't have it both ways. If you think that a designer fixed the
universe to fit us, then everylthing in it had to have been adjusted
by that designer.
You are being far more "literal" than I. I believe the laws of
physics were fine tuned. After this happened, everything else
simply fell into place following these precise laws.
I have given nothing to indicate that I think whoever or
whatever set the laws further intervene with "creation". I
I watched a tree grow from a seedling just outside my window
I don't think the "creator"physically placed the moon any more
than I think he or it planted this tree.
Leaves you with a problem of why there are billions and billions of
stars, etc., out there just so this one little, nondescrept planet
in
a remote, almost deserted arm of a minor galaxy can have life.
Why is this my problem?
Because you are the one who claimed that an intelligent designer
created
the
universe. As such this designer has to accept responsibility for the
universe and all that is in it. The same thought that tells you
design
makes
the rest of us say design..yes, intelligent...no.
You're right about our planet being a minor planet in a arm of an small
galaxie. But this doesn't affect us? Obviously we can't live on one of
the gas giants or any other planet in our solar system, except earth..
Furthermore, life required a massive universe and one of great age.
Would you care to support that assertion? I happen to sorta agree
with it due to the requirement of physics but would like to see your
reasoning.
As a physicist, you must know that heavier elements are only
formed inside stars. And elements which are heavier than
iron (fe) are created in the explosions of supernovas.
Our sun is a second generation star formed from the detritus
of the earlier generation stars. So, great age is necessary due
to the fact that billions of years is required in order for stars to
go through their life cycle. The vastness of the universe is
due to the fact that the universe is expanding over the billions
of years since the Big Bang.
Harry K- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. That would also be my reasoning but I wasn't aware of the
'millions' vice 'billions' as pointed out by Ralph.
This is a fascinating study. It's one of the remarkable discoveries
by Fred Hoyle. Who showed that the heavier elements were
formed in the interior of stars.
Harry K
That's okay Harry, Dan isn't aware of the millions instead of billions
either.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
There is a lot of stuff he isn't aware of.
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84sdk.21934$NQ5.16678@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xsedk.23870$3F5.2800@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dkzck.19525$LL4.11287@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Dan, you might be interested in Stenger's views on the anthropic
coincidences. I think you will find that the two of you disagree on the
source and also the magnitudes of the coincidences. In case you aren't
familiar with Stenger I would suggest you take a few moments of your
time
and read about them.
Good reading:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf#search=%22Fine%20tuned%20universe%22
After reading this article twice, I was hard pressed to find any
argument critical to the design inference and the Anthropic Principle
which had not been presented in these threads many times before.
Since they are so frequently employed by those who are adverse
to the idea of supernatural "design" it appears these arguments
are stock -- stock critiques.
You consider them 'stock' because they are valid views of the anthropic
coincidences and are used by those whose ideas are scientific and not
religious.
Actually - throughout, he is demanding the opposition to prove a |
negative. Why can you not see this?
| Quote: |
Not all of his arguments are negative. A few of his points seemed
somewhat supportive, rather than exactly critical.
Can you say equivocate???? Please define 'exactly' critical for me. Is
this
the reply where you were going to show where Dr. Stenger was wrong? Wow,
for
a man of your limited science ability you have a warped view of scientific
refutation.
Please don't jump to conclusions. Here, I was laying out _his_ arguments |
not mine. So, the question is: at this point, what are you complaining
about?
| Quote: |
I found his criticisms fell into four examples: He stated,
(exact quotes):
"Let us examine the implicit assumptions here.
1) First and fatal to the design argument all by itself, is wholly
unwarranted assumption that only _one_type_of_life_is_possible_."
2) "Still, we cannot rule out other forms of matter than molecules in
the universe as building blocks of complex systems. While atomic
nuclei, for example do not exibit the diversity and complexity seen in
the way atoms assemble into molecular structures, perhaps they might
be able to do so in a universe with different properities and laws."
3) "We cannot assume that life would have been impossible in our
universe had the physical laws been different."
4) "AN INFINITY of UNIVERSES
We have shown that conditions that might support some
form of life in a random universe are not improbable. Indeed,
we can know of one universe, and that that universe has life, so
the 'measured' probability is 100 percent, arbeit with a large
statistical uncertainity. This rebuts a myth that has appeared
frequently in the design literature and is indicated by Barrow
and Tipler's opinion (c), that only a multiple - universes
scenario can explain the coincidences without a supernatural
creator. (Swinburne, 1990). Multi - universes are certainly a
possible explanation, but a multitude of other, different
universes is not the sole naturalistic explanation available for
the particular structure of our universe."
There was one common thread running through each of these
critiques. It's what I've heard called hopeful conjecture.
I would say that the man holding a view of a supernatural entity creating
the universe is the one with the conjecture problem.
Example 1 - The expressed hopelul conjecture here
implies that other types of life might be possible. Yet not
one shread of evidence is offered to support these
hopeful other life types. Yet this hopeful conjecture is
supposidly _fatal_ to the design concept.
Yet not the first modicum exists for your 'deity' and you have no problem
whatsoever in accepting it, hook, line and sinker.
Rather than respond to what I have written, you are _changed_ the |
subject to my "deity". This is a ploy showing an unwilling to deal
with the issue I raised.
| Quote: |
Please tell me why you think that this is the only life and this is the
only universe we have.
We know of only _one_ universe and one life form and this life is |
_carbon_ based. You, are restating his argument, demanding of me
to prove there are no other universes and no other life forms. This
is proving a negative, which is a logical fallacy. It _cannot_ be done,
and this fact provides him and you safe harbor.
| Quote: |
Show your evidence. As a creationist, as you are, once told me, all
I have to do is provide the possibility. You have to show that life
can't exist.
As Dr. Stenger says, The design proponent has the burden of proving that
no other form of life is possible.
He's wrong! Trying to prove a negative is both illogical and fallacious. |
But it is upon this logical fallacy his criticism rest.
| Quote: |
Example: 2 - Expresses the hope that some other forms
of matter than molecules can create building blocks in order to
make complex systems.
"We cannot rule out other forms of matter..". - "perhaps
(these hypothecial molecules) might be able to assemble
complexity in a universe with different properties and laws.
But again no supporting evidence and no examples of other
forms of matter.
Can you rule out the possibility? Stenger said given the known laws of
physics and chemistry, we can easily imagine life based on silicon
(computers, the Internet?) or other elements chemically similar to carbon.
These still require cooking in stars and thus a universe old enough for
star
evolution. The N1 = N2 coincidence would still hold in this case, although
the anthropic principle would have to be renamed the "cyberthropic"
principle, or some such, with computers rather than humans, bacteria, and
cockroaches the purpose of existence. Only hydrogen, helium, and lithium
were synthesized in the early big bang.
This is a hyppothesis, until it is actually done it's not fact. Certainly, |
anyone can hypothesis any of a number of scenarios, but this is hardly
a valid argument.
It's pitting some unknown factors to discredit what is known.
Life is carbon based. No known life is based on silicon
| Quote: |
I am beginning to question your reading methods. What is silicon?
Insult noted. When you cannot discredit the man's argument - |
discredit the man. This is another logical fallacy.
| Quote: |
He didn't mention it but there is evidence of negative matter.
So? Just who supports this theory of negative matter? As Dr. Stenger says,
in my 50 years as a physicist I have never heard of negative matter.
Again you are trying to throw the burden of proof on my shoulders, a
typical theist tactic that simply fails because the theist is making the
less parsimonious assumptions.
I don't believe it actually exist either. In fact it cannot exist in our |
universe.
It's only hypothical. But there is an article about Negative matter in
Wikipedia encycopedia and New Scientist.
| Quote: |
Example 3 - Expressed hopeful conjecture implies that had the
physical laws been different, life could still be possible. But
no examples of what type of life and no discussion as to
which laws could be different. And no supporting evidence.
He just made a statement that said we cannot assume that life on earth
would have been impossible if the constants had been different. Can
you dispute the substance of his statement?
Obviously, different constants could have infinitely differing numerical |
values. One would have to take each of these infinate values and
demonstrate that under each of these condition life could not exist.
An impossibility! This demand for proof is a ruse. But it provides
a impenetrable defence to those who seek refuge in this logical
fallacy.
| Quote: |
Let's look at what he said:
I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of
several of the
constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot
prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of
constants. But anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one
conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
Do you understand why "proving an negative" is a logical fallacy? |
Example:
If someone were to claim that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the
universe - ie Startrek scenarios. You might disagree, but you
could never prove it. The reason should be obvious. Certainly,
you would offer startrek as evidence of intelligent life in the
universe.
| Quote: |
Read his last sentence.
If you need it dumbed-down for you I'll try to find
someone who can get that low.
Another personal insult. What is your problem that you have to |
stoop to personal insults. If you cannot win points through
reason and logic why do you think you can win through
insulting the opposition.
| Quote: |
Example 4 - Infinite universes is a standard, stock "explanation"
frequently employed by critics. The claim, "We have shown that
conditions that might support some form of life in a random
universe are not improbable", does not demonstrate that such
conditions does or could exist. So, it's hopeful conjecture,
since no such life in any random universe has been observed.
It's little more than wishful thinking. I have called these science
fiction universes. Appealing to science fiction in a search for
alternative explanations hardly gives credence to explanations
derived from imagionary universes.
Infinite universes is a concept that was around many years before the
theists jumped on the ID bandwagon.
I know James Jeans introduced the idea in the 1920s, but multi universes |
has been had a long run as central to many science fiction plots .
| Quote: |
Multiple universes are the solution to many cosmology questions and
the mathematics for them are a result of Guth's inflationary theory.
our idea of science fiction and real science.
You appear to have no separation, probably because you view god as a real
substance and are thus unable to separate science and science fiction.
This is totally irrational. But if you receive some solace from thinking |
god influences my thinking in this matter then you are welcome to your
delusion.
| Quote: |
Inflation cosmology has and will have many surprises for us, but as your
buddy Rees says, multiple universes are a consequence of inflationary
cosmology.
I don't think Rees says this. I have several of his books. In none of |
them, does he state emphatically that multiple universes exist, The
best he can do, and this is in his last book, is say that an "infinity
of universes _may_well_exist". (I underlined his words) This is
hardly support for you claim.
| Quote: |
Again Stenger says, since well established cosmology predicts more
universes,
that is again the more parsimonious assumption. You have the burden of
proving why there should be only one universe.
It's one thing to predict something, but it's another think to show that |
the prediction comes to fruition. And until it does, it isn't proof.
The road in science is littered with failed theories.
| Quote: |
This is an almost pointless discussion between us. It goes back to the
puddle. We exist because the universe has certain properties. The universe
wasn't created to accommodate us. We adapted to the universe. This is just
another example of theists attempting to hi-jack science for their god.
This will fail just as most ID claims have fallen. See Kitzmiller vs Dover
BOE for a real look at the field of Intelligent Design.
This modern I.D. is not important to me. I haven't envolved myself |
with studing or reading anything about or by those who advocate it.
Rees, Hawking, Penrose, Davie,s Gribbens ect are my sources,
not Kitzmiller etc.
| Quote: |
If you wish to continue this discussion, leave the personal insults |
behind. They are foolish and proves nothing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34c8f997-46f0-42e4-b412-d3ccab191618@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 2:33 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e931453-87de-4850-91f8-309dd41ce688@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 4:17 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kKQck.23174$3F5.20476@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AhNck.22841$Xe.16037@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:df9829e6-a481-48fb-81e3-6db117f837cb@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 1:29 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9185c3d1-3be0-41a7-ac68-374543fd7d08@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 6:20 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:i6a27495gedtina1v985pksd554fpmq3im@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:36:09 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the
parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K.
you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the
constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree,
what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are
fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
Just by calling it fine tuned, you imply teleology. The
parameters
are
what they are.
Your claim about astronomers is unsupported by evidence.
What do you disagree with: fine tuning or that many astronomers
accept fine tuning?
If you are scientific minded, you will know any system, be it
solar,
be it chemicals, they will all be fine tuned with each interacting
components, and settled to a final optimum result.
Where is the element of fine tuning?
Are you saying that the moon is put in place by your creator?
I've said _nothing_ at all about the moon. And no, I don't think
the moon was physically positioned in place by my "creator".- Hide
quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
You can't have it both ways. If you think that a designer fixed the
universe to fit us, then everylthing in it had to have been adjusted
by that designer.
You are being far more "literal" than I. I believe the laws of
physics were fine tuned. After this happened, everything else
simply fell into place following these precise laws.
I have given nothing to indicate that I think whoever or
whatever set the laws further intervene with "creation". I
I watched a tree grow from a seedling just outside my window
I don't think the "creator"physically placed the moon any more
than I think he or it planted this tree.
Leaves you with a problem of why there are billions and billions of
stars, etc., out there just so this one little, nondescrept planet in
a remote, almost deserted arm of a minor galaxy can have life.
Why is this my problem?
Because you are the one who claimed that an intelligent designer
created
the
universe. As such this designer has to accept responsibility for the
universe and all that is in it. The same thought that tells you design
makes
the rest of us say design..yes, intelligent...no.
You're right about our planet being a minor planet in a arm of an small
galaxie. But this doesn't affect us? Obviously we can't live on one of
the gas giants or any other planet in our solar system, except earth.
Furthermore, life required a massive universe and one of great age.
Would you care to support that assertion? I happen to sorta agree
with it due to the requirement of physics but would like to see your
reasoning.
As a physicist, you must know that heavier elements are only
formed inside stars. And elements which are heavier than
iron (fe) are created in the explosions of supernovas.
Our sun is a second generation star formed from the detritus
of the earlier generation stars. So, great age is necessary due
to the fact that billions of years is required in order for stars to
go through their life cycle. The vastness of the universe is
due to the fact that the universe is expanding over the billions
of years since the Big Bang.
Harry K- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. That would also be my reasoning but I wasn't aware of the
'millions' vice 'billions' as pointed out by Ralph.
This is a fascinating study. It's one of the remarkable discoveries |
by Fred Hoyle. Who showed that the heavier elements were
formed in the interior of stars.
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ujxdk.24307$Xe.24072@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84sdk.21934$NQ5.16678@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xsedk.23870$3F5.2800@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dkzck.19525$LL4.11287@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Dan, you might be interested in Stenger's views on the anthropic
coincidences. I think you will find that the two of you disagree on the
source and also the magnitudes of the coincidences. In case you aren't
familiar with Stenger I would suggest you take a few moments of your
time
and read about them.
Good reading:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf#search=%22Fine%20tuned%20universe%22
After reading this article twice, I was hard pressed to find any
argument critical to the design inference and the Anthropic Principle
which had not been presented in these threads many times before.
Since they are so frequently employed by those who are adverse
to the idea of supernatural "design" it appears these arguments
are stock -- stock critiques.
You consider them 'stock' because they are valid views of the anthropic
coincidences and are used by those whose ideas are scientific and not
religious.
Actually - throughout, he is demanding the opposition to prove a
negative. Why can you not see this?
|
It is difficult for me to understand why a man with the credentials
Strenger has, can't see that he is asking you to prove a negative. The
burden of proof can be reversed and the situation we have with the opposite
poles of the anthropic coincidences is one of those instances.
| Quote: |
Not all of his arguments are negative. A few of his points seemed
somewhat supportive, rather than exactly critical.
Can you say equivocate???? Please define 'exactly' critical for me. Is
this
the reply where you were going to show where Dr. Stenger was wrong? Wow,
for
a man of your limited science ability you have a warped view of
scientific
refutation.
Please don't jump to conclusions. Here, I was laying out _his_ arguments
not mine. So, the question is: at this point, what are you complaining
about?
|
Wow, I can't believe it.! So these are Stenger's words and not yours: "A few
of his points seemed
somewhat supportive, rather than exactly critical."
Now, let me ask this again, what does 'exactly critical' mean? Does it have
a scientific definition? One from logic? Exactly what does it mean and don't
tell me not to complain.
| Quote: |
I found his criticisms fell into four examples: He stated,
(exact quotes):
"Let us examine the implicit assumptions here.
1) First and fatal to the design argument all by itself, is wholly
unwarranted assumption that only _one_type_of_life_is_possible_."
2) "Still, we cannot rule out other forms of matter than molecules in
the universe as building blocks of complex systems. While atomic
nuclei, for example do not exibit the diversity and complexity seen in
the way atoms assemble into molecular structures, perhaps they might
be able to do so in a universe with different properities and laws."
3) "We cannot assume that life would have been impossible in our
universe had the physical laws been different."
4) "AN INFINITY of UNIVERSES
We have shown that conditions that might support some
form of life in a random universe are not improbable. Indeed,
we can know of one universe, and that that universe has life, so
the 'measured' probability is 100 percent, arbeit with a large
statistical uncertainity. This rebuts a myth that has appeared
frequently in the design literature and is indicated by Barrow
and Tipler's opinion (c), that only a multiple - universes
scenario can explain the coincidences without a supernatural
creator. (Swinburne, 1990). Multi - universes are certainly a
possible explanation, but a multitude of other, different
universes is not the sole naturalistic explanation available for
the particular structure of our universe."
There was one common thread running through each of these
critiques. It's what I've heard called hopeful conjecture.
I would say that the man holding a view of a supernatural entity creating
the universe is the one with the conjecture problem.
Example 1 - The expressed hopelul conjecture here
implies that other types of life might be possible. Yet not
one shread of evidence is offered to support these
hopeful other life types. Yet this hopeful conjecture is
supposidly _fatal_ to the design concept.
Yet not the first modicum exists for your 'deity' and you have no problem
whatsoever in accepting it, hook, line and sinker.
Rather than respond to what I have written, you are _changed_ the
subject to my "deity". This is a ploy showing an unwilling to deal
with the issue I raised.
|
I was showing you the fallacy of asking for evidence when you have none for
your position.
| Quote: |
Please tell me why you think that this is the only life and this is the
only universe we have.
We know of only _one_ universe and one life form and this life is
_carbon_ based. You, are restating his argument, demanding of me
to prove there are no other universes and no othe | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
