It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a fool
Very very childish and ignorant
a child who never had a science class
A TREE can be considered fine tuned because if its density was higher, it wouldn't get water to its leaves. But we KNOW how trees come to be, no designer required!!
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by edmc^2
Fact that you can't refute a simple truth such as - The Fined-Universe and that Life can only come from existing Life makes your platform weak.
Nope. I don't have a platform. I'm asking YOU to prove those statements. Obviously you can't. Life can only come from life = your opinion. The real answer is we don't know. The universe is the way it is. You keep attributing everything we can't explain to god. That's god of the gaps, not objective evidence. Once you post that objective evidence you'll have a chance, but thus far you've provided nothing but personal opinion. I've already posted the abiogenesis evidence, but you keep ignoring it, when it trumps anything you have said in this entire thread because it's based on reality and science experiments.edit on 14-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
The real answer is we don't know.
I've already posted the abiogenesis evidence
I consider it a possibility based on the science that it is.
Originally posted by Noncompatible
Originally posted by edmc^2
[snip].....
So to test your logic if you really have one - can the Universe be able to Fine-Tune itself?
What say you?
tc.
The one thing that is consistently left out of every statement and argument you make is :
Without the universe being in this state, we would not be here to have the discussion at all.
You also dismiss out of hand the argument from imperfection, which has an awful lot of logic to it.
Seriously if the universe was fine tuned by a creator(s), why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien) ?
That question leaves me thinking there are only two possible conclusions:
a) It wasn't
b) It wasn't created for us.
Both of which are , I'm sure, equally horrifying to you and the other supporters of the idea.
For the record I still do not think it was finely tuned and regard the idea as puddle thinking.
You also dismiss out of hand the argument from imperfection, which has an awful lot of logic to it. Seriously if the universe was fine tuned by a creator(s), why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien) ?
"why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien)?"
In other words you have no CLUE, NO Idea, Not a smidgen of knowledge of who or what can fine tune it.
A perfect example of Fallacious Argument - attack the messenger not the message.
But if you have no CLUE, NO Idea, Not a smidgen of knowledge of who or what can fine tune it - will you agree then that it's possible that SOMEONE fine tuned it? Otherwise the opposite will be true - that IT can fine tune itself. A self fine tuning universe. Yes?
If it's fact, kindly please produce a tree like the sequoia tree - start with just the seed to make things simple.
if you need to use technical publications and drawing, blueprints on how to produce a sequoia seed please do so. You can hire the best and the brightest botanist around. OK - prove that "no designer required!!"
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
Great.
I give you B on 1) Science
F as in Fail on 2) Religion.
Next...
Newsflash: NOBODY does, because there's no objective evidence whether the universe is fine tuned to todays state or not. And that's the only honest answer.
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
...
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
....
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -..
First, procure a decent number of seeds (perhaps 50) from a reputable dealer. I use J. L. Hudson. You need more than a few seeds because only 30% germinate, and in difficult climates up to 75% of seedlings will succumb to disease in the first year alone.
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Do you understand the difference between scientists presenting scientific theories and them stating an opinion?
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
How on earth is Weinberg saying this evidence of a creator??? He's stating a fact, namely that life as we know it wouldn't be possible if the laws of nature and physical quantities would be different...but at no point is he saying that's the result of a creator. And even if he did, saying so would be a BELIEF as long as he doesn't present objective evidence to back up those claims...something they do when it comes to scientific theories.
And that's the difference between science and belief...something you still don't seem to get after all those threads
And that's the difference between science and belief...something you still don't seem to get after all those threads
So evolution theory is science and a fact but a Fine Tuned Universe is just a belief? Is that what you mean?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
So evolution theory is science and a fact but a Fine Tuned Universe is just a belief? Is that what you mean?
YES! Mostly because there is NO "fined tuned universe" theory, and the anthropic principle is a PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT and NOT a scientific theory
"fine tuned" universe
Originally posted by MrXYZ
By the way, in case you really care to know why the "design requires a designer argument" is silly, check out this video:
ABIOGENESIS THEORY
then kaboomm life came to be
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Noncompatible
Logic isn't high up on their list of priorities, at least not whenever it goes against their beliefs. Take those bat# crazy Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations. And just in case the bible doesn't support their bat# crazy ides, that Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish
That's why it's so hard to discuss with those people...using rationality/logic doesn't always work
I mean, I've explained twice now that edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies. His answer? "You're using the same arguments again....so let me ignore that and simply repeat my same fallacies over and over again even though they were debunked long ago"
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Noncompatible
Logic isn't high up on their list of priorities, at least not whenever it goes against their beliefs. Take those bat# crazy Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations. And just in case the bible doesn't support their bat# crazy ides, that Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish
That's why it's so hard to discuss with those people...using rationality/logic doesn't always work
I mean, I've explained twice now that edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies. His answer? "You're using the same arguments again....so let me ignore that and simply repeat my same fallacies over and over again even though they were debunked long ago"
huh...I say again....huh??
...Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations...their bat# crazy ides...Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish..edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies.
What do these things have to do The Fine Tuned Universe discussion?
It's not one of those "fallacious arguments" of yours again Mr. XYZ? - "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):.."
Keep it up and pretty soon you'll have all of the list completed.
tc.
no scientific consensus about whether or not the universe is fine tuned (that's a FACT)
no scientific consensus about whether or not the universe is fine tuned (that's a FACT)