Originally posted by PenguinGod is the only explanation for life.
But does this come as any surprise? No-one has ever said that evolution could explain the origin of life and I see no reason why you would expect us to think it would.
--- Penguin.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
Originally posted by sonshipNo, he merely told you what the anthropic principle is as you used it incorrectly. You said:
I think this you have written is SUPREME SPIN. I don't mean it disrespectfully but that is what it sounds like to me - masterful spinning.
I mean truly masterful intellectual somersaults to make evidence argue for the opposite of what it seems to indicate - purposeful calibration.
The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.
Which is totally wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich is totally wrong.
No, he merely told you what the anthropic principle is as you used it incorrectly. You said:The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.
Which is totally wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
According to the citation you provided, the second paragraph literally says nearly exactly what was stated by sonship.
Emphasis added.
The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, it is not 'nearly identical'. The meaning of the two statements is very different. It will take clever word play to make them mean the same thing.
Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
To say otherwise simply makes no sense.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive."
Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
To say otherwise simply makes no sense.
The universe knew we were going to arrive.
"because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge."
The universe is compelled to have conscious life appear.
Not the same thing.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere's how sonship summarized the concept:
No, it is not 'nearly identical'. The meaning of the two statements is very different. It will take clever word play to make them mean the same thing.
The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.
Here's the line from Wiki:
the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge.
Those two are pretty close in meaning, except to the person who simply refuses to see the correlation.
Further, evolutionary biologist A.R. Wallace intoned:
"Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."
This, back in 1904.
I say that sonship has it pretty spot on.
Unplug your ears and listen, will ya?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo when A.R. Wallace intoned that, was he stating the strong anthropic principle? If not, then its not relevant. If he was, please give a reference to support your claim.
Further, evolutionary biologist A.R. Wallace intoned:"Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."
This, back in 1904.
I say that sonship has it pretty spot on.
Unplug your ears and listen, will ya?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSonship is claiming that there is a principle which argues that the universe knew we were coming. Not only does the strong version of the anthropic principle claim something much less specific, but it is a claim not an argument.
Here's how sonship summarized the concept:The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.