Fine-tuning of the Universe for life

Originally posted by twhitehead
Someone explains a basic fact of probability and its a 'slimy contribution'?
Come on, you know thats just plain unfair.

[b]You "played" with words by suggesting there was good reason for Fibonacci sequence to be involved with nature.
No, I did not. It is you, who deliberately chose to misunderstand my meaning.
If I said 'there is a good reason w ...[text shortened]... f us refuses to answer, then we can judge that person to be the most dishonest. Don't you agree?[/b]

Originally posted by sonship

it didnt 'select' or 'decide' anything. 'mountain' is just a word to describe a specific formation of matter. matter that has formed a shape due to the pushing and pulling of the fundamental forces of nature.

I could not believe that the four faces on Mt. Rushmore could have been formed by the pushing and pulling of the fundamental fo ...[text shortened]... fundamental forces of nature - unguided, unpurposed, unplanned, unintelligently brought about ?

Originally posted by sonship
The reason we can read design out of nature is because design was reasoned into it.

You would be hard pressed to explain how and unguided, purposeless, goalless, self "organizing somehow re-used a scheme like the "Golden Mean" across varied biological structures.

How would evolution decide " This is so useful - unguided, use it here, and here, and ...[text shortened]... to imagine such a repetitive scheme came out of a creative and designing reasoning intelligence.

Originally posted by sonship
I agree that if we talk any further it should be on another forum in a formal debating situation, with formal count of words, with selected number of rounds, with a specific word count and let an objective audience vote on who made a more convincing presentation.

I am tired of your zingers, stupid one liners, and chat holding your own beliefs close to ...[text shortened]... hink you need my permission to do so.

Stick with what you think. Stay with what you believe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words, you are not willing to answer 10 questions from me.

I guess all that's left to do is reflect your words back to you:
I don't think you have a truth side to finally come out.

[b]...holding your own beliefs close to the vest ...
[/b]

Originally posted by sonship
Just take my words there at face value.

Originally posted by SwissGambit


I'd also caution that the easiest explanation is not always the best one.[/b]

I find that we humans like to explain things with patterns and numbers. The fact that some things behave according to patterns does not mean they are designed; it just means their operation is amenable to that type of analysis.

I also find that you have trouble even speaking of a hypothetical in which only natural forces lead to the formation of life. You cannot even write one sentence in which an agent does not pop in to do the 'deciding'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well here is the truth: Life forms on Earth are nothing special, since species come and go like clockwork. Humankind themselves are 100% responsible for the latest craze in extinctions and humankind is no more special than any other and could go just like the dinosaurs but with a lot shorter lifespan as a species than most any dinosaur who lived here for li ...[text shortened]... n't no god that thinks humans are something special.

Only in our imaginations are we special.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

When's the last time you saw a dog texting while driving a car?
Or a cat playing the piano?

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship

When's the last time you saw a dog texting while driving a car?
Or a cat playing the piano?

Cat Playing Piano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDCcFjxtmqc

More tuning constants , quantities:

Could be just happy coincidences.

tuned initial uniformity of radiation

if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

tuned average distance between galaxies

if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

tuned density of galaxy cluster

if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

tuned average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

tuned fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

tuned decay rate of protons

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

tuned 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

tuned ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

tuned decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

tuned ratio of neutron mass to proton mass

if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

tuned initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

tuned polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

tuned supernovae eruptions

if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

tuned ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass

if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

tuned number of effective dimensions in the early universe

if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

tuned number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

Originally posted by sonship

[b]I find that we humans like to explain things with patterns and numbers. The fact that some things behave according to patterns does not mean they are designed; it just means their operation is amenable to that type of analysis.

But in some cases, it is hard to assume they were not designed.

Now for a more rigorous and ...[text shortened]... rd - I don't have enough faith to believe that the DNA molecule involved no intelligent design.[/b]

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Part of reasoning is considering "what if the answer is the thing I don't like?" Not fun to think about sometimes, but if you never do it, you can end up BS'ing yourself.

When you say "I can't imagine DNA in a world with no design", what I read is, "I haven't tried that hard to conceive of a world in which DNA is not the result of design."

I ...[text shortened]... in the hated viewpoint's shoes and thinking hard from that perspective is difficult for us all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you hate us Christians? Is it because we believe in creation over evilution? Or that we believe the earth began existing about 6000 years ago? Or is it that we have promises of a paradise existence for eternity? Or is it because we say non-believers and evil-doers will have their part in the Lake of Fire that burns for eternity? What is it in your case?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Part of reasoning is considering "what if the answer is the thing I don't like?" Not fun to think about sometimes, but if you never do it, you can end up BS'ing yourself.

When you say "I can't imagine DNA in a world with no design", what I read is, "I haven't tried that hard to conceive of a world in which DNA is not the result of design."

I ...[text shortened]... in the hated viewpoint's shoes and thinking hard from that perspective is difficult for us all.

Part of reasoning is considering "what if the answer is the thing I don't like?" Not fun to think about sometimes, but if you never do it, you can end up BS'ing yourself.

When you say "I can't imagine DNA in a world with no design", what I read is, "I haven't tried that hard to conceive of a world in which DNA is not the result of design."

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.[b] from Wikepedia

I don't say this to bash you - putting yourself in the hated viewpoint's shoes and thinking hard from that perspective is difficult for us all.