|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ralph
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0KKdk.22422$NQ5.22021@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c441b568-1090-4c0a-83f6-77a533ffbbf3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Alxdk.24309$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.
I'm sure this is true, Harry. I don't deny it.
But its certain that the first stars didn't appear until almost one
billion years after the big bang. The mass of a star determines
how long it takes to go through it's life cycle. The greater the
mass the shorter the life span of a star. Our sun, a 2/nd or
perhaps 3/rd generation star is half way through its cycle of ten
billion years.
|
That's right Harry. The first stars didn't from until the first galaxies
formed, and that would appear to be approximately 1B ago. However, the
original statement that billions of years were required for stars to
complete their life cycle has to be modified to read, some stars cycle
through their lives in millions of years while others, such as our sun, have
a billions of years cycle. The short cycle massive stars also produced the
greatest mass of heavy elements in the universe. This is fortunate for us as
the earliest stars were the largest stars thus the universe was populated
with heavy elements early in its life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Aerion
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1MLdk.29456$AJ6.11737@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0KKdk.22422$NQ5.22021@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c441b568-1090-4c0a-83f6-77a533ffbbf3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"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.
I'm sure this is true, Harry. I don't deny it.
But its certain that the first stars didn't appear until almost one
billion years after the big bang. The mass of a star determines
how long it takes to go through it's life cycle. The greater the
mass the shorter the life span of a star. Our sun, a 2/nd or
perhaps 3/rd generation star is half way through its cycle of ten
billion years.
That's right Harry. The first stars didn't from until the first galaxies
formed, and that would appear to be approximately 1B ago.
No, our own solar system, including our sun and Planet Earth is 4.5 |
billion years old.
The universe is approximately 13.74 billion years old. the first stars
and galaxies came into existence about 12 billion years ago or
almost 1billion years after the Big Bang.
| Quote: |
However, the
original statement that billions of years were required for stars to
complete their life cycle has to be modified to read, some stars cycle
through their lives in millions of years while others, such as our sun,
have a billions of years cycle. The short cycle massive stars also
produced the greatest mass of heavy elements in the universe. This is
fortunate for us as the earliest stars were the largest stars thus the
universe was populated with heavy elements early in its life.
Yes, you are right, massive stars life cycles are much less than stars of |
one solar mass. Some massive stars run through their life cycle in
less than 10 million of years.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Aerion" <Aerion@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VKNdk.24723$3F5.19044@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1MLdk.29456$AJ6.11737@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0KKdk.22422$NQ5.22021@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c441b568-1090-4c0a-83f6-77a533ffbbf3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Alxdk.24309$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.
I'm sure this is true, Harry. I don't deny it.
But its certain that the first stars didn't appear until almost one
billion years after the big bang. The mass of a star determines
how long it takes to go through it's life cycle. The greater the
mass the shorter the life span of a star. Our sun, a 2/nd or
perhaps 3/rd generation star is half way through its cycle of ten
billion years.
That's right Harry. The first stars didn't from until the first galaxies
formed, and that would appear to be approximately 1B ago.
No, our own solar system, including our sun and Planet Earth is 4.5
billion years old.
The universe is approximately 13.74 billion years old. the first stars
and galaxies came into existence about 12 billion years ago or
almost 1billion years after the Big Bang.
|
Sorry, meant to say approximately 1B after the big bang.
| Quote: |
However, the
original statement that billions of years were required for stars to
complete their life cycle has to be modified to read, some stars cycle
through their lives in millions of years while others, such as our sun,
have a billions of years cycle. The short cycle massive stars also
produced the greatest mass of heavy elements in the universe. This is
fortunate for us as the earliest stars were the largest stars thus the
universe was populated with heavy elements early in its life.
Yes, you are right, massive stars life cycles are much less than stars of
one solar mass. Some massive stars run through their life cycle in
less than 10 million of years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O5Odk.25986$PZ6.4293@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Aerion" <Aerion@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VKNdk.24723$3F5.19044@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1MLdk.29456$AJ6.11737@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0KKdk.22422$NQ5.22021@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c441b568-1090-4c0a-83f6-77a533ffbbf3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Alxdk.24309$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.
I'm sure this is true, Harry. I don't deny it.
But its certain that the first stars didn't appear until almost one
billion years after the big bang. The mass of a star determines
how long it takes to go through it's life cycle. The greater the
mass the shorter the life span of a star. Our sun, a 2/nd or
perhaps 3/rd generation star is half way through its cycle of ten
billion years.
That's right Harry. The first stars didn't from until the first galaxies
formed, and that would appear to be approximately 1B ago.
No, our own solar system, including our sun and Planet Earth is 4.5
billion years old.
The universe is approximately 13.74 billion years old. the first stars
and galaxies came into existence about 12 billion years ago or
almost 1billion years after the Big Bang.
Sorry, meant to say approximately 1B after the big bang.
However, the
original statement that billions of years were required for stars to
complete their life cycle has to be modified to read, some stars cycle
through their lives in millions of years while others, such as our sun,
have a billions of years cycle. The short cycle massive stars also
produced the greatest mass of heavy elements in the universe. This is
fortunate for us as the earliest stars were the largest stars thus the
universe was populated with heavy elements early in its life.
Yes, you are right, massive stars life cycles are much less than stars of
one solar mass. Some massive stars run through their life cycle in
less than 10 million of years.
This is correct, I was mistaken.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:azbdk.19862$CC.9988@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:68adk.12873$1I.8563@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4099@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.
As a dentist, you must know that the first stars were massive and fused
hydrogen quickly, thus billions of years were not required for the
formation of the first heavy elements. The burn rate of many early giant
stars is in the millions of years, not billions of years.
I checked this out. I was wrong. The more massive the star the |
shorter its lifecycle. So you were right.
BTW this just appeared on this crt.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did miss a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible, etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself, intentional or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fIbdk.19868$CC.11228@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IK5dk.20421$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$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious doctrines in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
Non sequitur. Answer the damn post, Dan! Are theists attempting to limit
scientific inquiry? The answer is yes, nothing more needs to be said.
It depends, I disbelieve that theist are opposed to science in |
general. But I do recognise that some theist are opposed to
evolution, but not the science enterprise as a whole.
Right or wrong they believer evolution debases and diminishes
human beings to the level of animals and undermines morality,
ethics and social order.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2scdk.19893$CC.11649@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news: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.
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.
Why tell this to me, I do not. urthermore I never heard of Bob Jones until |
reciently and it is not important.
| Quote: |
If am surprised you passed your biology courses!
If biology courses have to explain why snakes cannot talk, etc biology |
courses want
help them.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry k
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 12, 5:55 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've made..
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself, intentional
or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
But not in the meaning the theists want.
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself, intentional or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
|
Only by theists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NV8ek.140$bN2.118@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fIbdk.19868$CC.11228@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news: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?
Non sequitur. Answer the damn post, Dan! Are theists attempting to limit
scientific inquiry? The answer is yes, nothing more needs to be said.
It depends, I disbelieve that theist are opposed to science in
general. But I do recognise that some theist are opposed to
evolution, but not the science enterprise as a whole.
Right or wrong they believer evolution debases and diminishes
human beings to the level of animals and undermines morality,
ethics and social order.
|
A young earth creationist, for example, denies the sciences of biology,
geology, paleontology, physics, cosmology, astronomy, genetics...and more
which I can't think of off-hand. The US has approximately 25% of the
population that deny parts or all of these sciences. You may feel content to
sit on your ass and spout platitudes of BS or perhaps you are even one of
them, but this is a slippery slope to the dark ages.
I lived in the 'bible belt' when I was growing up and the bigotry and
narrow-mindedness of these people causes me to fight them everywhere I can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself, intentional
or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3xbek.223$w93.133@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NV8ek.140$bN2.118@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fIbdk.19868$CC.11228@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IK5dk.20421$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?
Non sequitur. Answer the damn post, Dan! Are theists attempting to limit
scientific inquiry? The answer is yes, nothing more needs to be said.
It depends, I disbelieve that theist are opposed to science in
general. But I do recognise that some theist are opposed to
evolution, but not the science enterprise as a whole.
Right or wrong they believer evolution debases and diminishes
human beings to the level of animals and undermines morality,
ethics and social order.
A young earth creationist, for example, denies the sciences of biology,
geology, paleontology, physics, cosmology, astronomy, genetics...and more
which I can't think of off-hand. The US has approximately 25% of the
population that deny parts or all of these sciences. You may feel content
to sit on your ass and spout platitudes of BS or perhaps you are even one
of them, but this is a slippery slope to the dark ages.
I lived in the 'bible belt' when I was growing up and the bigotry and
narrow-mindedness of these people causes me to fight them everywhere I
can.
How? Unless you | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
