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.
You've just checked into your hotel room for a weekend's getaway. Thrilled by the accoutrements, you immediately walk onto the room's balcony to take in the eighth floor view. Unfortunately, the guardrail gives way the instant you lean on it. You plummet, falling head over heels toward the pavement of the street below. You scream, but for some reason you don't feel the splat and splintering of every bone in your body. No, instead you find yourself immersed in an immense, soft bed. Of all the vehicles to fall into, you managed to hit an open trailer full of defective pillows from the local bedding factory. Why is it that conditions were just right for your survival? Cosmologists often apply this question to life on Earth with the Goldilocks principle, which ponders why Earth is "just right" for life. The anthropic principle tackles an even greater question: Why is the universe itself just right for life? For instance, when you compare the electromagnetic force to gravity, we find that electromagnetism is 39 times stronger, according to physicist and author Victor J. Stenger. And that's handy because if the two powers were more evenly matched, stars wouldn't burn long enough for life to develop on an orbiting planet. Scientists refer to this as an anthropic coincidence, or a coincidence related to mankind's very existence.
Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago. So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did? In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:
Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why. Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible.
DNA related science that reveals no source of new genetic material ever being evidenced in species' genetic structure.
Willtell
reply to post by Ghost147
One thing the video points out that the universe is fine tuned for life
And that HAS to be by design.
Many of the known scientific facts of the universe if off by I percent would destroy life.
Its too fine tuned to be random
Willtell
reply to post by Ghost147
If you hear the examples you would be convinced
Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147
Really this is from a scientific perspective. I'm not joking. The people on these videos are scientists.
It is too complex really hence why I shared the video.
Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147
I am simply stating that Darwin's Theory cannot be demonstrated on a genetic level, which it can't.
Ghost147
Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147
Really this is from a scientific perspective. I'm not joking. The people on these videos are scientists.
It is too complex really hence why I shared the video.
I would be more compelled to view the video if I didn't highly suspect that it contained, otherwise, bogus material. That's why I'm asking for someone who has viewed it to point out a few specific arguments. If they are compelling enough, I will be more inclined to view the full video.
Also, The Theory Of Evolution only deals with genetic levels. Genetics is what the entire theory is based on.edit on 28/12/13 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)
Brotherman
reply to post by Xcalibur254
How did self replicating RNA transform into an organism by means of mutation into dna and turned into a creature that crawled out of some spooky primordial ooze into a symbiotic environment condusive to life?
Brotherman
reply to post by Xcalibur254
And then how did this original species turn into many species in the same environment that allowed it to live as is without predators as it would have been one original in the way way beginning (I will even leave plants out of this even though I understand it is fundamentally wrong to do so) or is it that the original species crawled out of this ooze different within the same environment for some reason with the inherent will to eat each other for no reason?