originally posted by: swanne
Well, some scientists say that this can be explained by the presence of a gradient of multiverses, each with their own constant. In such a hypothesis, the "right" universe (with the "right" constants) is bound to exist for life to occur.
BTW I am agnostic. So my personal opinion is not really biased towards any side on this God issue.
You're citing the guys who say there doesn't need to be any fine tuning to support your fine tuning argument?
originally posted by: Brighter
Incorrect. It's not just a 'small number', it's astonishingly small, precise and extraordinarily significant. The cosmological constant, lambda, was most recently calculated at 10^-122 in "The Value of the Cosmological Constant", by John D. Barrow and Douglas J. Shaw in a March 2011 issue of the journal _General Relativity and Gravitation_.
Cosmologists John Barrow and Douglas Shaw of the University of Cambridge have now proposed a new approach to solve the cosmological constant problems, without any fine tuning involved.
The essence of their new approach is that the bare cosmological constant is promoted from a parameter to a field, making the entire Universe a quantum mechanical wave function...
originally posted by: Brighter
there is no independent evidence for any other universe other than our own
Whatever it is that is generating the infinite number of universes (and what actually is generating them?) would have to be governed by a complex set of physical laws
What I find most interesting about the multiverse theory is just how desperate the atheists are getting in attempting to defend against the existence of fine-tuning. They're now forced to posit the most outrageous theories of infinite numbers of universes
If they don't believe in evolution I fail to see what problem you'd have with the cartoon. Evolution is a scientific fact.
the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
If they don't believe in evolution I fail to see what problem you'd have with the cartoon.
Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism. Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism.
Evolutionary creationism, or theistic evolution, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:
"A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life)"
The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.
The day-age theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. Most advocates of old Earth creationism hold that the six days referred to in the creation account given in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, as the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What you wrote doesn't change the dictionary definition of creationists, as well as the common usage in language that creationists tend to deny evolution, which is why the dictionary says what it says.
If people who believe in theistic evolution choose to call themselves "creationists" for some unfathomable reason, which then associates them with the evolution deniers, don't find this behavior to be that intelligent. Why not call themselves "theistic evolutionists"?