Evidence that the stuff of life is everywhere:

Originally posted by sonhouse
You say that as if it were a fact. In fact that is your opinion. Based on what other people actually think. You didn't think about that on your own. You just parrot what other people wrote.

But of course, that is the only thing right wing christians can do.

You are the one that parrots what other people write. I do not claim that you
have no right to your opinion. But I have just as much a right to my opinion.
I have thought about this on my own and I realize opinion is not fact or science.
I also have come to the conclusion that God's word makes more sense than
man's word on evolution and creation. I also believe everything is not as old
as many speculate based not only on the Holy Bible but also the laws of science.
You see the data and interpret it according to your world view. I see
the data an interpret it according to my world view. At this point only God
knows who is right. I believe I am right and you are wrong.

Originally posted by humy
“...What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values? ..”

That is the critical rhetorical question. But for the benefit of those that don't know the answer, the answer is “nothing”.
That was the point I was arguing for in my previous posts ( but with my statements being constantly misinterpreted by over zealous fast-readers) ; we cann ...[text shortened]... ere not different any more than we can say it is 'inevitable' that they were not different.

A concatenation of coincidences. Where life is reported to exist, it is reported by the life that is found there. Reports from other environments are absent. But that's all we can say -- the reports are absent.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are the one that parrots what other people write. I do not claim that you
have no right to your opinion. But I have just as much a right to my opinion.
I have thought about this on my own and I realize opinion is not fact or science.
I also have come to the conclusion that God's word makes more sense than
man's word on evolution and creation. I als ...[text shortened]... ld view. At this point only God
knows who is right. I believe I am right and you are wrong.

So the fact that historical data from the past thousand years or so showing little change in the earth since then aside from the occasional ice age and so forth, but the mountains look the same in drawings made hundreds of years ago and we know the Grand Canyon looks just about exactly the same as it did 150 years ago, which is a good portion of your 10 thou earth history. None of that makes the slightest bit of difference to you.

Have you ever had an original thought or is all you say just predigested pablum from other people?

BTW, I formally challenge you to a blitz game, 3, 5, 10 minute, whatever you want. Lets see how you are there. You can't pull the age card on me, I am 2 years older.

Originally posted by humy
“...i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise. ...”

I never said that it was. Note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.

“...Remember, the standard you have set for deeming fine-tuning reasonable ("...there is no... reason to believe in 'fine-tuning'." ) is nothing less tha ...[text shortened]... to date of any kind of 'tuning' i.e. that the constants could be 'tuned'.

And none of this would make any difference to the conclusion that we cannot say anything about the probabilities of the physical constants being different to what they are and, therefore, by implication, we can say nothing about the probability of there being “fine-tuning”.

But inflationary theory requires finely-tuned initial conditions. Which means fine-tuning requires an explanation (your appeal to ignorance notwithstanding).

I don't see how: doesn't the words “fine-tuning” clearly imply there is some “tuning”? There is absolutely no evidence to date of any kind of 'tuning' i.e. that the constants could be 'tuned'.

Fine-tuning is a term physicists use when referring to a model whose parameters must be "fine-tuned" in order to agree with the observations (generally problematic). In other words, "fine-tuning" was and is a term never intended to refer to "divine intervention", as you put it. Where do you think the various multiverse theories came from? Or Hawking's no-boundary proposal? Each were meant to answer the fine-tuning problem, which you claim doesn't exist.

Again, "fine-tuning" refers to the fact that the initial conditions of the universe, its low entropy state, had to be highly organized (i.e., were the initial conditions even slightly different, the evolving universe would have either immediately collapsed, or expanded too quickly for gravitation to form stars and galaxies, etc., etc.). "Fine-tuning" is, as I said, a neutral term lacking implications of "design".

__________


P.S. It seems obvious now that you are confusing "fine-tuning" and "design".

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the fact that historical data from the past thousand years or so showing little change in the earth since then aside from the occasional ice age and so forth, but the mountains look the same in drawings made hundreds of years ago and we know the Grand Canyon looks just about exactly the same as it did 150 years ago, which is a good portion of your 10 tho ...[text shortened]... er you want. Lets see how you are there. You can't pull the age card on me, I am 2 years older.

We young Earth Christians believe after the Creation of the Earth the only big
change in the Earth occurred because of the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
I believe there was only one Ice Age which was also due to the flood. The
Grand Canyon was also due to the flood. The extinction of the Dinosaurs was
due to the flood. The high mountains was due to the flood. The separating of
the continents of the world was due to the flood. Volcanic eruptions was due
to the flood. All these things began occurring after the flood. It is all these
actions caused by the flood that has confused many scientists in believing the
Earth is very old. Thus, those that claim to be wise become fools because
they do not believe God. Glory be to God. HalleluYah!!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The extinction of the Dinosaurs was due to the flood.

But nobody seriously disputes the fact that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
But inflationary theory requires finely-tuned initial conditions. Which means fine-tuning requires an explanation (your appeal to ignorance notwithstanding).

The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first. That every hair on my cat is where it is, requires extremely fine-tuned initial constants. But so would they if they were somewhere else, or even if my cat was hairless. Every state of the universe, requires a fairly specific prior state - although for each prior state multiple possible futures exist, and depending on how you interpret quantum mechanics, multiple prior states are possible.

Originally posted by FMF
But nobody seriously disputes the fact that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

You have led a sheltered life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first. That every hair on my cat is where it is, requires extremely fine-tuned initial constants. But so would they if they were somewhere else, or even if my cat was hairless. Every state of the ...[text shortened]... ist, and depending on how you interpret quantum mechanics, multiple prior states are possible.

You just justified it and don't realize it. Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have led a sheltered life.

The 'argument' that "[I] have led a sheltered life" does not amount to something that seriously disputes the fact that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Indeed, it rather demonstrates the 'level' on which you are disputing the science; you immediately tried to make it personal, 'something wrong with me' blah blah.

And so now we see the effect of your widely discussed lack of credibility kick in: all your non-sequiturs, your pointless nastiness, your dodged questions, the question mark hanging over you about being a cheat at chess - which just gets more and more question-marky every time you make some hopelessly ramshackle attempt to fend off the smoking gun evidence, ...and all the rest.

You played your forum persona cards in a certain way, relished being the funny poisonous little bumpkin, wallowed in the attention, and did all this against the advice of wiser heads.

And now you want to lecture people - ad hominem - on how they have lived their lives away from this message board? It's pretty funny really. You help epitomize - in your own harmless little way - what the internet is and does: it empowers just about everybody and anybody to just say just about anything, indeed whatever they want, to anyone, and feel good about the fact that they've said it.

So there we go. The dinosaurs didn't become extinct 65 million years ago but, instead, a mere few thousand years ago according to RJHinds. Presumably you feel good about the fact that you've said so here on the internet and had a bit of a go at those who disagree. Another happy customer at RHP!

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first. That every hair on my cat is where it is, requires extremely fine-tuned initial constants. But so would they if they were somewhere else, or even if my cat was hairless. Every state of the ...[text shortened]... ist, and depending on how you interpret quantum mechanics, multiple prior states are possible.

I was thinking about this in terms of a priori versus ex post probabilities. Would you say that, ex post, the statement: “The outcome could have been otherwise” is a logically meaningless statement—at least unless the nature of that “otherwise” is specified? In such a case, ignorance is not an argument: it is a fact. And if no ex post probability can be assigned to any other outcome, the phrase “fine tuning” is also meaningless.

[Note: As I understand it, in a multiple (or manifold) universe model, all possible outcomes do occur in some universe, since the wave-function does not collapse; in such a case the probability, both a priori and ex post, would be 1.0 for all outcomes?]

Originally posted by FMF
The 'argument' that "[I] have led a sheltered life" does not amount to something that seriously disputes the fact that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Indeed, it rather demonstrates the 'level' on which you are disputing the science; you immediately tried to make it personal, 'something wrong with me' blah blah.

And so now we see the e internet and had a bit of a go at those who disagree. Another happy customer at RHP!

Well, there is something wrong with you if you think the dinosaurs became
extinct 65 million years ago. Most large dinosaurs became extinct at the time
of Noah's flood. But there may be some still living in the sea. Scientist don't
know for sure. I also believe that the Gila Monster could be classified as a small
dinosaur. But I am not a dinosaur expert. But to think dinosaurs became
extinct 65 million years ago is absurd, since there was no Earth in existence at
that time.

Originally posted by vistesd
I was thinking about this in terms of a priori versus ex post probabilities. Would you say that, ex post, the statement: “The outcome could have been otherwise” is a logically meaningless statement—at least unless the nature of that “otherwise” is specified? In such a case, ignorance is not an argument: it is a fact. And if [i]no[/i ...[text shortened]... pse; in such a case the probability, both a priori and ex post, would be 1.0 for all outcomes?]

It is amazing to me what you atheists imagine to deny the truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, there is something wrong with you if you think the dinosaurs became
extinct 65 million years ago. Most large dinosaurs became extinct at the time
of Noah's flood. But there may be some still living in the sea. Scientist don't
know for sure. I also believe that the Gila Monster could be classified as a small
dinosaur. But I am not a dinosaur ex ...[text shortened]...
extinct 65 million years ago is absurd, since there was no Earth in existence at
that time.

I see from some blogs on the internet that there are other people who believe the same thing as you.

Originally posted by FMF
I see from some blogs on the internet that there are other people who believe the same thing as you.

I hope so. HalleluYah !!!