1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    08 Nov '13 22:02
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    gardening doesn't explain how soil is formed.
    gardening is just a theory (certainly in my household!)
  2. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    08 Nov '13 23:34
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    YES

    The Instructor
    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.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 Nov '13 02:11
    Originally posted by Penguin
    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.
    God is the only explanation for life.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

    The Instructor
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Nov '13 06:55
    Originally posted by sonship
    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.
    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
  5. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    09 Nov '13 21:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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
    Which is totally wrong.
    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.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Nov '13 21:55
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    According to the citation you provided, the second paragraph literally says nearly exactly what was stated by sonship.
    Emphasis added.
    Nope, sorry, its not even close.
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    09 Nov '13 21:59
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Nope, sorry, its not even close.
    Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
    To say otherwise simply makes no sense.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Nov '13 02:26
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
    To say otherwise simply makes no sense.
    It is obvious that twhitehead is in denial of the truth.

    The Instructor
  9. SubscriberPianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    Seedy piano bar
    Joined
    09 May '08
    Moves
    277663
    10 Nov '13 07:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is obvious that twhitehead is in denial of the truth.

    The Instructor
    I would be interested to know what your definition of the word "truth" is, and whether you can describe it without resorting to vague terms such as "God" etc.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Nov '13 08:48
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
    To say otherwise simply makes no sense.
    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.
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    10 Nov '13 09:32
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    gardening is just a theory (certainly in my household!)
    Okay, that was funny! 🙂 Good one
    Kelly
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    10 Nov '13 09:39
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
    To say otherwise simply makes no sense.
    "The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive."

    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
  13. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    11 Nov '13 01:092 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    Here's how sonship summarized the concept:
    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?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Nov '13 05:19
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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?
    So 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.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Nov '13 05:23
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Here's how sonship summarized the concept:
    The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.

    Sonship 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.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree