15 Jun '11 02:43>
Originally posted by sonhouseLOL 😉
I wonder how many light years long this god is? Is she bigger than the known universe?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe 1953 War of the Worlds movie is far superior, IMO.
i watched the war of the worlds yesterday, it was scary!
Originally posted by JS357Less effects but more drama somehow. The latest one had Cruise as a woos, didn't know ash from teakettle.
The 1953 War of the Worlds movie is far superior, IMO.
But I was not alive for this:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds.htm
or search on "war" at
http://www.mercurytheatre.info/
And play the mp3.
Originally posted by sonhouseits not true. it is enough for the strong force to be less strong and no atoms get formed. or if gravity would have been stronger, the universe might have begun contracting 1 year after being started and collapsed again. there is no "other stuff compensating". they are called fundamental forces for a reason.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html
He makes a strong case against the fine tuning of the universe, where he notes people change one parameter like gravity saying a few percent one way or the other and we don't exist, but if one parameter changes, likely is it for other parameters to change with it, compensating.
Originally posted by ZahlanziOf course if we can speculate like this there is the naturalist reply: Assuming the universe formed by some sort of unguided event (which your statement posits) and as you say, gravity was strong enough for it to collapse before life developed, what would keep it from forming again, maybe this time with gravity being a little weaker? Maybe this could repeat and eventually there would be a universe with parameters such that the precursor molecules to life, or life itself, could develop in. Then, no big surprise, we find ourselves there.
its not true. it is enough for the strong force to be less strong and no atoms get formed. or if gravity would have been stronger, the universe might have begun contracting 1 year after being started and collapsed again. there is no "other stuff compensating". they are called fundamental forces for a reason.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne======================================
While that may sell books, the "universe fine tuned for life" argument only appeals to the self-centered. Therein lies the biggest fallacy. If some of the parameters were sufficiently different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and human beings wouldn't exist. So what? There may still be a universe and life, just not as we know it. If they didn't realize the fallacy. Of course, they are what they are. They cannot see beyond themselves.
Originally posted by jaywillNot sure what your response has to do with my post. It's as if you read the first line and responded without taking its entirety into account.
[b]======================================
While that may sell books, the "universe fine tuned for life" argument only appeals to the self-centered.
======================================
Baloney,
Say the center of the universe is humankind.
Say the center of humankind is one Jesus Christ.
His center was not SELF but His F ...[text shortened]... /b] self sacrificial love.
Man as the center does not have to mean man is self centered.[/b]
If some of the parameters were sufficiently different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and human beings wouldn't exist. So what? There may still be a universe and life, just not as we know it. If they didn't hold the self-centered belief that the universe exists for themselves, they'd realize the fallacy.
Originally posted by JS357sure, i don't dispute this fact.
Of course if we can speculate like this there is the naturalist reply: Assuming the universe formed by some sort of unguided event (which your statement posits) and as you say, gravity was strong enough for it to collapse before life developed, what would keep it from forming again, maybe this time with gravity being a little weaker? Maybe this could repeat an ...[text shortened]... cules to life, or life itself, could develop in. Then, no big surprise, we find ourselves there.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi'For what' would be to make a universe that the new constraints allowed life. If the multiverse concept is anything like true, there would be lots of universes with no chance for life, maybe one big gas ball or something.
sure, i don't dispute this fact.
we as humans marvel at how fine tuned the universe is that it allowed for our evolution. meanwhile perhaps, in another universe, sentient beings made of energy marvel the same thing. or in another universe some creatures shudder to think that if their strong force would be only sligthly less strong, the super heavy ato ...[text shortened]... gainst his point that if one force is changed, another would step in the compensate (for what?)
Originally posted by sonhouseand the interstellar space is void. what is your point? a fine tuned universe which allows life doesn't need to have organic material in every cubic centimeter.
'For what' would be to make a universe that the new constraints allowed life. If the multiverse concept is anything like true, there would be lots of universes with no chance for life, maybe one big gas ball or something.
Don't forget, even here on Earth, there are places with no life.
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut not more than a couple miles underground since even extremephobes can't survive in 200 degree F temperatures.
and the interstellar space is void. what is your point? a fine tuned universe which allows life doesn't need to have organic material in every cubic centimeter.
and about your "there are places on earth with no life". care to explain that? where are those places? below the mohorovicic discontinuity? at 800 km altitude? where? there are bacterias in antartica or at 8000m depth in the ocean.
Originally posted by galveston75Because among the planets we know, there's a huge range of parameters. For life as we know it, we need a temperature range to allow for lots of liquid water. There are billions and billions of planets which qualify, but only one, maybe two, in our solar system.
Then why don't all planets have life on them?