The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

reply to post by MrXYZ


OK - but please stick to the topic.

tc

reply to post by edmc^2


Listing 10ish scientists isn't showing a "scientific consensus"

The article I linked lists numerous reasons why there is no consensus, but I guess you simply ignored it while pretending a couple of scientists voicing an OPINION (versus presenting a scientific theory) is somehow proof of a "scientific consensus".

Do you see why that's laughable?

reply to post by edmc^2


Stephen Hawking:
Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"

I could go on..but this is purely an illustration of why quoting peoples opinions inevitably backfires....

You are falling into the trap of putting the cart before the horse. You have the answer, you then work backwards selecting only the data (or opinions) that fits your conclusion.

Incidentally Fred Hoyle is the scientist that refused to accept anything other than Steady State and caused the term "big Bang" to be popularized. He was also a lifelong Atheist.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Stephen Hawking:
Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"

I could go on..but this is purely an illustration of why quoting peoples opinions inevitably backfires....

You are falling into the trap of putting the cart before the horse. You have the answer, you then work backwards selecting only the data (or opinions) that fits your conclusion.

Incidentally Fred Hoyle is the scientist that refused to accept anything other than Steady State and caused the term "big Bang" to be popularized. He was also a lifelong Atheist.

man - I wish you read what I post so that I don't keep reposting it.

Anyway just in case you missed it here's the post: www.abovetopsecret.com... and here's what I said>

"Dude I'm so aware that most if not all the people I quoted DO NOT BELIEVE IN God - but the POINT is they believe that -------- the Universe IS Fine Tuned to support life..

Let me state it again - they admit that the Universe is Fine Tuned to support life EVEN though they don't believe in God.

As to why they don't believe in God - check again what I said in the OP. "

So when these same people explain evolution theory it's a fact, correct?

But when they say something that have to do with The Fine Tuned Universe they have no credibility, correct?

Is that how it works?

In that case Einstein's theory like the relativity theory or his famous formula E = m c 2 doesn't mean anything then?

Since both Einstein and Hawkings do not believe in a Divine Creator - does this mean that they have no idea of what they were talking about when it came to the exacting parameters of the universe?

Parameters and constants that can be verified and applied in day to day life?

Take again for example E = m c 2:

This formula is so precise that we can predict the outcome with exacting precision. Why? thanks to "cosmological constants" present in the universe. A magnificent formula in which gravity, space, and time were weaved together - a refinement of Sir Isaac Newton's physics.



Take again what Stephen Hawking said:

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers 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 that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. ...

Compare it with Rocket expert Wernher von Braun:

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. .."

Compare it with Astrophysicist Alan Lightman noted that scientists:

“find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.”
...“any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem”

To a statement in the Discover magazine:

“We perceived the order in surprise, and our cosmologists and physicists continue to find new and astonishing aspects of the order. . . . We used to say it was a miracle, and we still permit ourselves to refer to the whole universe as a marvel.”

Compare this with the August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States:

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.

Compare it with what Einstein said:

“It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity; to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe, which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifest in nature.”

but you say:

I could go on..but this is purely an illustration of why quoting peoples opinions inevitably backfires....

I agree IF one doesn't know what a Fine Tuned Universe means.

Remember, the premise of those who are opposed to FT theory is that the universe came from nothing - ZERO - not what E=mc2 have shown.

Bottom line is - if you can prove that Einstein's "cosmological constant" does not exist then you have a point.

tc.

Oh God..
even though I see you every day and I don't need proof of your existence
I know that I know you not. You are not in reality. You are one with life,
the great paradox. I view you as nothing and something. You can be personified,
and for simplicity you should be, but you should not be.
As significant as you may be, you are also trivial.
That we could see the 'otherside', the indivisible outside of our apparent reality,
we might find a source as causative as a waterfall, which, too, must have a source.
Of said 'apparent reality', here are two points to consider:
- of our 'Fine Tuned Universe': if things were slightly different, or vastly different,
as they might be in other universes(multi-universe theory), is it not possible that
different forms of life could exist? That what is on our Earth is not the
penultimate expression of life? (that we are here to ponder these things is irrelevant because: )
- imagine our senses: if our abilities to perceive were different we would, interact differently,
for example we may paint differently, or build differently, which would probably influence our growth as a species. As an example, imagine we could hear electricity, or see magnetism, or even feel gravity, how different would we and our creations have evolved?

there's nothing to argue about really..
no one need be condemned..
there are truely no definitive answers (about the when, where, what, who, why and how of the universe)..

and now, a poem

Death and the soliloquy

Death and the soliloquy, turn a blind eye.
Side the heavens till morn, ever riding...
The hills converse a warning;
Eternity’s change of robes, fray,
Friar’s tongue decays to feed the rising earth.
Water of the sea ascend, frothing, vaporising,
Hues to view prismatic reality.
Survival of the fit, write to dust
Which hardens to stone,
Hence weathered lessons and eroded teachings,
Meet the sea, ascend once more and again

Never alone; blood of all-father spills through cosmic waves.
What beyond all could comprehension entangle?
Smoke and mirrors, abstract reality, true reality...
To whom?
That great thing from which we and all we see are born?
Nothing should be,
Yet by these accustomed laws perceived,
Everything has its place to be.
But from what does all this appear?
How is that to begin with?
What did something begin from, when truly nothing should exist.
/

Peace to you and yours.
This life is ours and we are brothers and sisters in blood.

PS: more on topic, do we know if any other form of 'fine-tuned universe' could give way to life?

reply to post by edmc^2

So when these same people explain evolution theory it's a fact, correct?

But when they say something that have to do with The Fine Tuned Universe they have no credibility, correct?

Is that how it works?

In that case Einstein's theory like the relativity theory or his famous formula E = m c 2 doesn't mean anything then?

Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory (like evolution or relativity) and scientists stating a belief/opinion? One time they present hard data (evolution, relativity), the other they are merely stating an opinion...like when someone asks them "do you like that flower", and they say "yes".

Learn the difference between a scientific theory, hypothesis, and philosophical argument fro crying out loud

Remember, the premise of those who are opposed to FT theory is that the universe came from nothing - ZERO - not what E=mc2 have shown.

You keep on repeating that bull#

Scientists aren't saying "it came from nothing", they say "WE DON'T KNOW". They don't even know what came before the big bang, so how could they claim stuff came from "nothing". They don't know what happened in the first split second of the big bang, or before it. So please stop claiming scientists are saying stuff came from nothing.

You get that from creationist websites who loooooove repeating that, but it makes you look silly given that scientists are quite open about not knowing what was before the big bang.

In short: Nothing you posted "affirms or confirms a creator", and that's a FACT

A creationist quote mining scientists? never!

If WLC can't get away with it, what make you think you can?

Please supply sources for all these quotes so we can check to see whether or not they were taken out of context in order to deceive.

Otherwise ain't nobody got time for that.

reply to post by edmc^2


*Sigh*
Whether it be Einstein's or any other equation it simply means the rules are consistent and we can observe them. It is proof only of consistency not fine tuning.

No, I would not trust an astrophysicist regarding Evolution Theory, it is not his field, so it would be an opinion.

The Fine Tuned Universe position with regards to a creator is speculation based on the observable universe.
It is not proof or even a theory, it is an opinion and speculation.
Without any data, it will remain so, acceptable to only those who believe it.

With that noted, I will leave you to your belief as further discussion will achieve nothing beyond you rehashing the same flawed argument once again.

reply to post by Jimjolnir


Short answer: Yes

2nd line

Originally posted by Prezbo369
A creationist quote mining scientists? never!

If WLC can't get away with it, what make you think you can?

Please supply sources for all these quotes so we can check to see whether or not they were taken out of context in order to deceive.

Otherwise ain't nobody got time for that.

edit on 16-4-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

here u go:

Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

The Symbiotic Universe" by George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology - see OP.

Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p.
83.

Stephen Hawking - from his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, - see p 175 also.

See also The New York Times Magazine, “The Universe and Dr. Hawking,” by Michael Harwood, January 23, 1983, p. 53. - where he said:

“The more we examine the universe, we find it is not arbitrary at all but obeys certain well-defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law."

Rocket expert Wernher von Braun - from National Enquirer, February 10, 1976.

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.

More here: www.aish.com...
here: www.geraldschroeder.com...
here: www.simpletoremember.com...
here: www.godandscience.org...

Note - I have no affiliation with the websites above nor promoting their teaching - I just used them for quotes.

I was hoping the TalkOrigins.org have lists of these quotes as they are good at proofing it - but can't find them. But as far as I'm concern the Fine Tuned Universe quotes are correct because they are verifiable. But if you doubt them by all means do your thing.

Just like what Steven Hawking said:

“The more we examine the universe, we find it is not arbitrary at all but obeys certain well-defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law."

reference post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hopefully - I don't need to provide anymore proof from experts about the Fine Tuned Universe because it is Fine Tuned!

Only the ones who can't accept this fact will continue to deny it. As for who fine tuned it, like I said - everyone is entitled to their own belief. All I'm doing is showing the facts about the universe - and based on logic and common sense - there's nothing in the universe that I'm aware of that is self tuning - there's always someone behind the fine tuning whatever system it is. To say otherwise is credulity.

tc.

btw - who is this WLC? I don't know them.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by edmc^2

 

*Sigh*
Whether it be Einstein's or any other equation it simply means the rules are consistent and we can observe them. It is proof only of consistency not fine tuning.

No, I would not trust an astrophysicist regarding Evolution Theory, it is not his field, so it would be an opinion.

The Fine Tuned Universe position with regards to a creator is speculation based on the observable universe.
It is not proof or even a theory, it is an opinion and speculation.
Without any data, it will remain so, acceptable to only those who believe it.

With that noted, I will leave you to your belief as further discussion will achieve nothing beyond you rehashing the same flawed argument once again.

thanks for your participation.

Hopefully - I don't need to provide anymore proof from experts about the Fine Tuned Universe because it is Fine Tuned!

Let's leave aside the fact that I don't get your point regarding whether or not the universe is fine tuned...but listing a couple of scientists stating an OPINION (as opposed to releasing a scientific theory!!) isn't a sign of "scientific consensus"...no matter how much you want it to be

You still don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and scientists voicing an opinion...that's kinda sad after all those posts

reply to post by MrXYZ

Scientists aren't saying "it came from nothing", they say "WE DON'T KNOW". They don't even know what came before the big bang, so how could they claim stuff came from "nothing". They don't know what happened in the first split second of the big bang, or before it. So please stop claiming scientists are saying stuff came from nothing.

I thought that was Dr. Victor J. Stenger said in his calculations - I got it from the Wiki you posted.

here: en.wikipedia.org...

Bubble universe theory
Main article: Chaotic inflation theory
See also: Multiverse#Bubble theory

The bubble universe model by physicist Andrei Linde postulates that our Universe is one of many that grew from a multiverse consisting of vacuum that had not yet decayed to its ground state.

According to this scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation, the Universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation, but is not quite "nothing." The space inside this bubble of false vacuum was curved, or warped. A small amount of energy was contained in that curvature, somewhat like the energy stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals. The bubble then inflated exponentially and the Universe grew by many orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second. (For a not-too-technical discussion, see Stenger 1990[26]). As the bubble expanded, its curvature energy was converted into matter and radiation, inflation stopped, and the more linear Big Bang expansion we now experience commenced. The Universe cooled and its structure spontaneously froze out, as formless water vapor freezes into snowflakes whose unique patterns arise from a combination of symmetry and randomness. —Victor J. Stenger, The Anthropic Coincidences[27]

note:

According to this scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation, the Universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation, but is not quite "nothing."

tc:

reply to post by MrXYZ

You still don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and scientists voicing an opinion...that's kinda sad after all those posts

Of course I do - like saying Abiogenesis is fact but just an opinion - a very bad one at that.

BTW - was Einstein's "cosmological constants" just an opinion to you?

tata...

reply to post by edmc^2

According to this scenario...

I'll ask again: Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory, scenarios, models, hypotheses, and philosophical arguments???

Because if you keep on quoting stuff like this, you give the impression that you CLEARLY don't

Also, not all scientific theories are the same. In theoretical physics for example (which this quote pertains to) a theory doesn't necessarily represent reality because it contains components that can't be tested (yet). That's why it's called theoretical physics.

The multiverse theory postulates that multiverses exist in the first place, which is something we don't know (yet). It's the same with evolution, it postulates that life started in the first place...something we CAN test.

Maybe his theory is right though, but it will take testing to determine that.

Testing like they've done for evolution...or gravity...or thermodynamics...

There's a difference between THEORETICAL SCIENCES and APPLIED SCIENCES.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I'll ask again: Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory, scenarios, models, hypotheses, and philosophical arguments???

hahahaha....

Of course I do - the (using your word) "clowns" that I quoted believe it to be so.

Albert Einstein said it to be so, Steven Hawking believe it is.

But as far as abiogenesis is concern - that is a pure hypothesis - a very flimsy one at that based on pure imagination not logic and common sense.

Based on this definition:

A theory -- is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.

A hypothesis -- is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.

Like - "we predict that if we mix this stuff with this stuff then pass a spark to it we should expect life! - abiogenesis"

As for you precious evolution theory - of course to you it's a theory now accepted as fact even though it's still an unproven theory as it has no demonstrative foundation - i.e. abiogenesis.


Anyway thanks to you now I know who Victor J. Stenger is. He's one of the most prolific critic of Fine Tuned Universe Theory. Wow silicon base life-form!!

Do you know that he believes in Multi-verse theory? Now was that an opinion, hypothesis or his philosophical argument? I guess he has to believe in it as critic of the Fine Tuned Universe theory.

But what amazes me is the divided camp within the atheistic / evolutionists community.

Fighting each other to disprove the other - while those who believe in Creation are laughing their you know what off.

tata...

reply to post by edmc^2


You're losing it edmc, you're now spewing nothing but nonsense

There is a difference between:

- the theory of evolution (scientific theory that is fully tested an applied)
- the multiverse theory (scientific theory in THEORETIC physics)
- scientists stating a belief/opinion like in the quotes you posted
- abiogenesis (hypothesis)

You clearly don't get the difference...because you claim I accept the theory of evolution because somehow I want to believe in it. Do yourself a favor and google hypothesis, scientific theory, and objective evidence...because until you do, every single post will make you look silly.

You also don't seem to know how science works in general if you consider varying opinions of scientists "fighting". They "fight" all the time because by their very nature they're sceptics. As for evolution, scientific consensus is massively on the side of evolution...more than 99.5% of scientists (you know, the people who are best qualified to judge it) believe it's a sound theory

reply to post by edmc^2


I see you are still ignoring the article I posted about RNA ribonucleotides forming in a lab. That is objective evidence toward abiogenesis. Saying its a bad theory is a joke, considering your "theory" has ZERO evidence behind it. Who are you to criticize a field of science you know absolutely zilch about, while parading around acting like a creator is proven to exist? There is more evidence of abiogenesis than there is for god. Sorry, but that's a FACT, although neither is proven 100%. You simply don't understand what constitutes as proof and what is your personal opinion. You have a pre determined conclusion and ignore anything that goes against it.

reply to post by Barcs


Not ignoring it - it's nothing new and doesn't prove this nonsensical unproven theory of yours, the spontaneous appearance of life - abiogenesis. In fact it proves just the opposite - that life can only arise from pre-existing life.

But if you insist, let's take a look at your article:

It says in the title:

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

and claims that -in short:

... evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

But did they? Let's see -

The article further says that when researchers: www.wired.com...

...synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA

they...

... couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

But then

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force”..

rather than...

..adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

then they

mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

from which a

"more complex molecules"

resulted.

but then when they

.. added phosphate.

IT

remarkably transformed into the ribonucleotide!”

and from this lab experiment they concluded that the...

laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Really? and you believe such wild imagination?

But what does this really prove?

This - that even though man is intelligent (enough) to recreate such bountiful chemical elements, he IS still incapable of creating life from inanimate materials. He is incapable of such miracle inspite of all the knowledge and modern instruments at his disposal. Something that only the Divine Creator can do!

As for:

these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond”

Do you subscribe to such crazy assumption?

If so who are the bright, intelligent scientists "resemble" then in this " life-originating “warm little pond” of yours???

Furthermore can such earth's primitive global conditions be replicated in a bottle?

On the other hand what were the "laboratory conditions" when the experiment was conducted?

I can definitely say - it's a controlled environment. A condition where Sutherland's team no doubt created in order to produce such results.

I can also say without any doubt that all their instruments were fine tuned and calibrated to spec (like the high-performance liquid chromatography) in order to produce such results, otherwise the experiment will be very inaccurate and unproductive. Any contamination will be detrimental to the experiment so it must be a clean environment.

I can also say that they followed precise guidelines for conducting the experiment or else it's all blind chance an unending trial and error.

Let's see what else, good discipline and care would also been observed while conducting the experiment.

I can list more but you see my point? "These laboratory conditions" when the experiment was conducted DID NOT "resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond”.

In fact according to many evolution scientists , they say that in the beginning, earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. The energy is supplied by sunlight, lightning, radiation and exploding volcanoes -a far cry from "these laboratory conditions". And from these inhospitable conditions - by sheer chance and accident life's ingredients somehow formed from which life spontaneously appeared.

See the nonsense of the abiogenesis theory? Yet you still subscribe to it?

tc.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Nope - reason why the scientific (evolution/atheistic) community are in disagreement with each other is because of Creation believers - like me.

That is that when it comes to proven theories like the Fine-Tune Universe Theory and the Big Bang Theory, many Creation believers believe and accept them to be true.

This, to an evolutionist/atheist is a BIG NO NO, so they will do all they can to debunk it.

Thus a growing number of atheistic scientist now doubt that the Big Bang ever occurred and that the Universe is NOT Fine Tuned even though the evidence are against them.

Otherwise they will accept it as it is - fact!

Source:
rense.com...
www.amazon.com...

tc.