Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Also, the Earth is neither

Also, the Earth is neither special nor specially located. In a few million years Earth will be a ball of magma, and Mars will be in the habitable zone of Sol. But god put us here now, I can already hear you think. Well that's nice. Why did he wait 4.5 billion years then, I respond. Why not put us here 2 billion years ago? The Earth could have supported us well enough by then. Why the Earth at all? It's too small, isn't particularly rich in resources other than oil (which took 3.5 odd billion years of death to produce), and the majority of the surface is uninhabitable for our species.
And why is he hiding from us? There's no other explanation for an all powerful beings existence yet obvious lack of presence. So many theists have to bring out personal delusions and cooincidences, not one has a fact that can be passed around and studied by all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:
 < The equality of the charge on the electron and proton is not one of the issues - it follows automatically and directly from the way positively and negatively charged particles are assumed to form from the decomposition of neutral particles.
In fact i don't be a expert in physics. But since it seems you are, you might explain what natural mechanisms that are in place, and induce the neutral particles to form protons and electrons with the exact needed charge.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
The thin line of tolerance of this electrical charge is extremely intricate. What is the probability that the charge of these particles would be almost identical, if the universe occurred by chance—without any design from an intelligent mind?

What about the small tolerance implies design? This seems to be nonsequitor. Suppose I was born January 1, 1960. If I was born on this day, I'd be 49. If I was born on January 1, 1961 I'd be 48. I would not be 49 because I was designed to be 49, but because of the fact I was born on a particular date. The existence of phyiscal matter is a consequence of the physical properties. If it was any other way, then perhaps it would not exist, but that does not mean it was designed to be this way. Does this make sense. I'm not trying to disprove or prove what you are saying, but rather that the argumentation does not seem to be valid.

I don't understant what correlation that your example has with what we are discussing. If you are born at one or the other date, does only change your age, nothing more. You will live in any case. The constants of the laws of physics however have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html The Ratio of Electrons, Electromagnetic Force, Expansion Rate of the Universe, Mass of the Universe, Cosmological Constant amongst hundreds of other constants are fine-tuned in a way, that chance can be excluded as probable agent to put this degree of fine-tuning in place naturally.

 

Its also interesting to know what scientists say about the fine-tuning of the universe :

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:I don't

angelobrazil wrote:

I don't understant what correlation that your example has with what we are discussing. If you are born at one or the other date, does only change your age, nothing more. You will live in any case. The constants of the laws of physics however have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html The Ratio of Electrons, Electromagnetic Force, Expansion Rate of the Universe, Mass of the Universe, Cosmological Constant amongst hundreds of other constants are fine-tuned in a way, that chance can be excluded as probable agent to put this degree of fine-tuning in place naturally.

That is the point...the correlation between what age I am is a result of the day I was born on, not that I was "designed" to be the age I am. Solid matter is the result of physical properties in the same manner age is a result of one's birthday.

The question I am asking is, how does one detect design? What distinguishes designed items from undesigned items? Any sort of rubric that we produce for determining design on a universal scale would be exhibit design according to the way we determine design. This is the same things as saying, "It's designed because I said it is designed," which is known as question begging. The probabilties are meaningless if the tests are not really testing anything objective. The univserse may very well have design, but we cannot know it is designed without question begging. Does this make sense?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

I don't understant what correlation that your example has with what we are discussing. If you are born at one or the other date, does only change your age, nothing more. You will live in any case. The constants of the laws of physics however have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html The Ratio of Electrons, Electromagnetic Force, Expansion Rate of the Universe, Mass of the Universe, Cosmological Constant amongst hundreds of other constants are fine-tuned in a way, that chance can be excluded as probable agent to put this degree of fine-tuning in place naturally.

That is the point...the correlation between what age I am is a result of the day I was born on, not that I was "designed" to be the age I am. Solid matter is the result of physical properties in the same manner age is a result of one's birthday.

The question I am asking is, how does one detect design? What distinguishes designed items from undesigned items? Any sort of rubric that we produce for determining design on a universal scale would be exhibit design according to the way we determine design. This is the same things as saying, "It's designed because I said it is designed," which is known as question begging. The probabilties are meaningless if the tests are not really testing anything objective. The univserse may very well have design, but we cannot know it is designed without question begging. Does this make sense?

There is overwhelming evidence, that the Universe was designed to host life. If you don't think so, you are left with chance. Chance however is nothing.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century.

Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

an example of the right chemistry, but other examples are given at the below homepage :

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html

The Right Chemistry

All life on earth depends on the cooperation of many complex biochemicals, each containing thousands or even millions of atoms. These include DNA and RNA, which store and transmit information by which living cells operate; and proteins, which provide structural material and speed up chemical reactions so that plants and animals can respond quickly to external changes. These molecules are enormously complex and detailed structures carrying on particular, specialized tasks. Such organization presents a serious challenge to the idea that life arose by chance rather than design, but that is not our subject here.2

On a much simpler level, such chemicals as carbon, phosphorus, and water suggest that life didn't just happen. Carbon is the only element in existence which forms chains of almost unlimited length, needed for DNA, RNA, and protein. All the carbon in our universe apparently formed inside stars and was scattered over space as stars exploded. Yet by two coordinated "quirks," carbon is a common element rather than a very rare one. Carbon is formed by a rare collision of three helium nuclei. It happens that the temperature inside stars is right at a "resonance" for carbon, an energy level at which these nuclei stick together unusually well. If this resonance energy were only 4% lower, carbon would be very rare. On the other hand, carbon easily combines with another helium nucleus to form oxygen. But it just so happens that the energy of the combination is just above an oxygen resonance, which is thus out of reach. If this resonance were only % higher, nearly all carbon would convert to oxygen. In either case, carbon would be very rare and life itself rare or nonexistent.3

Phosphorus is unique among the elements in forming compounds (ATP, ADP) which can store large amounts of energy. Without these compounds there would be no higher animal life since such an efficient method of energy storage is needed for mobility. Yet only phosphorus, of all the elements, has this capability. It looks like phosphorus was designed for this purpose.

Water is at least as unusual as carbon or phosphorus. Its molecule (two hydrogens and one oxygen) is lighter than molecules of nitrogen or oxygen, and thus should be a gas at temperatures suitable for life. However, water forms polymers, combinations of two or three molecules joined loosely together, so that it is actually a liquid at these temperatures. As a liquid it is the basic fluid of animal blood, tree sap, and cell plasma. Yet when water evaporates, it no longer forms polymers. This allows it to disperse in the atmosphere so it doesn't stifle life by lying on the earth's surface as an unbreathable gas. No other substance has this property.

Water is also a universal solvent, dissolving the necessary solid chemicals so they can circulate in the bloodstream, plant sap, and living cells. All other liquids which can dissolve a comparable number of chemicals are highly corrosive and deadly to living things.

Water is unusual in being able to absorb a large amount of heat for a given change in temperature. As a result, it moderates the climate of the earth and helps stabilize the body temperature of animals. Like few other substances, it expands rather than contracts on freezing. This prevents oceans and lakes from freezing to the bottom (killing marine life), and it aids in the formation of soil by splitting up rocks. Truly water is a most amazing substance. Together with the thirsty traveler on a hot day, the chemist can say, "There's nothing like it!"4


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Nothing quite like

Nothing quite like apologetics based on century-old data, eh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Nothing quite

jcgadfly wrote:

Nothing quite like apologetics based on century-old data, eh?

huh, i didn't know that here

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html

they present century old data.... any century old book, explaining the same things, to confirm what you say ?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Nothing quite like apologetics based on century-old data, eh?

huh, i didn't know that here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html they present century old data.... any century old book, explaining the same things, to confirm what you say ?

More apologetics based on old data.

Science has more than "God did it!" Shame you don't want to go further.

If you want a rational discussion, present rational evidence. Thanks.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:He

angelobrazil wrote:

He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter.

Quote:
"God," that's force,

God is a force? So, is he a normal force? Gravity? Friction? 

Quote:
"the heavens," that's space,

The writers of the Bible didn't even know that outer space existed. By heavens, they're referring to everything they see in the sky, which includes the sun, moon, and stars. 

Quote:
"and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century.

The Earth is not all the matter that exists. The Earth is insignificant. The writers of the Bible didn't know this because they still thought the Earth was a flat circle inside a little snow globe with the entire universe rotating around it inside.   

Quote:
All life on earth depends on the cooperation of many complex biochemicals, each containing thousands or even millions of atoms. These include DNA and RNA, which store and transmit information by which living cells operate; and proteins, which provide structural material and speed up chemical reactions so that plants and animals can respond quickly to external changes. These molecules are enormously complex and detailed structures carrying on particular, specialized tasks. Such organization presents a serious challenge to the idea that life arose by chance rather than design, but that is not our subject here.2

Complex organisms obviously wouldn't be the first to arise. Once organisms reproduce and impart genes to offspring, natural selection takes over. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:angelobrazil

jcgadfly wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Nothing quite like apologetics based on century-old data, eh?

huh, i didn't know that here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html they present century old data.... any century old book, explaining the same things, to confirm what you say ?

More apologetics based on old data.

Science has more than "God did it!" Shame you don't want to go further.

If you want a rational discussion, present rational evidence. Thanks.

Sorry, no. No shame on me. Present actual data, which disproves the data i presented here.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Nothing quite like apologetics based on century-old data, eh?

huh, i didn't know that here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html they present century old data.... any century old book, explaining the same things, to confirm what you say ?

More apologetics based on old data.

Science has more than "God did it!" Shame you don't want to go further.

If you want a rational discussion, present rational evidence. Thanks.

Sorry, no. No shame on me. Present actual data, which disproves the data i presented here.

You haven't presented any data - that's my point. I'm still waiting on it.

"The Bible tells me so", quote mining and incorrect claims aren't data.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:angelobrazil

jcgadfly wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

ang;The Bible tells me so", quote mining and incorrect claims aren't data.

[/quote wrote:

are the infos for example in this homepage

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html

no data for you ? if not, than you might show , what in your opinion data is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"The Bible tells me so", quote mining and incorrect claims aren't data.

are the infos for example in this homepage http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/Newman.html no data for you ? if not, than you might show , what in your opinion data is.

What is data?

1. Something not deliberately pulled  for purposes of misrepresentation.

2. Something not debunked a long time ago.

3. something that is more than just conjecture. Hint: Citing the conjecture of someone one agrees with doesn't make it evidence.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:There is

angelobrazil wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence, that the Universe was designed to host life. If you don't think so, you are left with chance.

And I can keep reasserting that this is question begging, and we are back to square one.

Reasserting the same argument over and over and pasting other articles from another website does not really help me or you for that matter. My contention is not with design, as I have never stated my position for or against it. What you are not dealing with is what  other and myself are trying to help you see, which is the circularity of the logic in design arguments. Are you willing to deal with this, or are you going to reassert the same argument and copy and paste more articles? If you're on a mission to prove that your right by attempting to flood this thread with "evidence", it won't work. If anything, people will just stop posting because the conversation becomes rather boring and counter productive.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
And I can keep reasserting that this is question begging, and we are back to square one.

Reasserting the same argument over and over and pasting other articles from another website does not really help me or you for that matter.

I am sorry for you, but it just that you prefer simply to ignore the hard facts and evidence, instead to face it, and take logical conclusions, based on rational thinking. But when a wish, God not to exist, is stronger, than any strong evidence, than the wish prevails. I understand that.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
My contention is not with design, as I have never stated my position for or against it. What you are not dealing with is what  other and myself are trying to help you see, which is the circularity of the logic in design arguments.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no circularly reasoning. Try harder.... The fine-tuning of the universe clearly shows there is design. Chance is not capable to come up with it. DNA also is a complex and specific code, no chance to come up with chance to answer for this.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Are you willing to deal with this, or are you going to reassert the same argument and copy and paste more articles?

Well. That depends. I have tons of material. There are over one hundred fine tuning constants.....

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
If you're on a mission to prove that your right

i cannot prove anything, and i am not here for that. But i am showing strong, rational and logical evidence for a designer. No poster has debunked my arguments yet.  I have yet to see rational thinking from the " rational squad "....... 

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:I am

angelobrazil wrote:


I am sorry for you, but it just that you prefer simply to ignore the hard facts and evidence, instead to face it, and take logical conclusions, based on rational thinking. But when a wish, God not to exist, is stronger, than any strong evidence, than the wish prevails. I understand that.


I'm not ignoring anything. I neither affirmed or denied the existence of design. I was saying the argument is fallacious. As I stated, the contention is not with design per se, but with argument. You have no idea what my beliefs are on the matter nor whether I am an atheist or a theist.



angelobrazil wrote:


Sorry, but there is absolutely no circularly reasoning. Try harder.... The fine-tuning of the universe clearly shows there is design. Chance is not capable to come up with it. DNA also is a complex and specific code, no chance to come up with chance to answer for this.


Asserting there is no circularity in the reasoning and not showing is hardly a defense of the argument. I demonstrably showed how the argument is circular, and all you say is, "absolutely no circularly reasoning." Show me how it is not circular.



angelobrazil wrote:


No poster has debunked my arguments yet.  I have yet to see rational thinking from the " rational squad ".......



I am just a poster in the forum, not a part of any squad. I like to talk about this sort of thing. The whole idea of "debunking" something is...well not really the point of argumentation. Arguments are not "debunked" per se, but either shown to be invalid or unsound, of which me and others things your argument is the latter.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
And I can keep reasserting that this is question begging, and we are back to square one.

Reasserting the same argument over and over and pasting other articles from another website does not really help me or you for that matter.

I am sorry for you, but it just that you prefer simply to ignore the hard facts and evidence, instead to face it, and take logical conclusions, based on rational thinking. But when a wish, God not to exist, is stronger, than any strong evidence, than the wish prevails. I understand that.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
My contention is not with design, as I have never stated my position for or against it. What you are not dealing with is what  other and myself are trying to help you see, which is the circularity of the logic in design arguments.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no circularly reasoning. Try harder.... The fine-tuning of the universe clearly shows there is design. Chance is not capable to come up with it. DNA also is a complex and specific code, no chance to come up with chance to answer for this.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Are you willing to deal with this, or are you going to reassert the same argument and copy and paste more articles?

Well. That depends. I have tons of material. There are over one hundred fine tuning constants.....

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
If you're on a mission to prove that your right

i cannot prove anything, and i am not here for that. But i am showing strong, rational and logical evidence for a designer. No poster has debunked my arguments yet.  I have yet to see rational thinking from the " rational squad "....... 

 

If you insist on a formal debunking, look at these. These are not original to me but I'm bot reinventing the wheel for you. Your arguments are old and oft-debunked.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html - anthropic principle (fine tuning)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html - first cause

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html - DNA as language

Read more than apolegetics and see what happens.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If you insist

jcgadfly wrote:

If you insist on a formal debunking, look at these. These are not original to me but I'm bot reinventing the wheel for you. Your arguments are old and oft-debunked.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html - anthropic principle (fine tuning)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVOyLZdhTPA&feature=related

 

1.Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. 

It seems that atheists do stop  and pause the ability of rational thinking, when they see something that comes from talkorigins. It automatically MUST be eloquent and true..... 

The above argument is so shamefully baseless, its just silly somebody to believe it.

It's simply  a baseless claim. It is vague, and void any examples.

 In his book Miracle of Theism, the well known atheist J.L. Mackie declares the flaw in Hume's reasoning: "There is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants, and it is therefore surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. This is not made less surprising by the fact that if it had not been so, no one would have been here to be surprised. We can properly envision and consider alternative possibilities which do not include our being there to experience them."

 

Not only life would not exist without a finetuned universe, but the universe itself would not. 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm#429

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/finetune/finetune.htm

3. The Remarkable Requirements for Initial Conditions

The cosmos is hurtling outward at a remarkably balanced velocity. In his fascinating work Beside Still Waters: Searching for Meaning in an Age of Doubt, Gregg Easterbrook discusses the concept. If the expansion were slightly less, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself soon after its birth. If it were slightly more rapid, the universe would have dispersed into a thin soup with no aggregated matter. The ratio of matter and energy to the volume of space at the birth of the universe must have been within about one quadrillionth of one percent ideal! After reflecting upon this unlikely scenario, Dr. Bradley notes that it "has been the impetus for creative alternatives, most recently the new inflationary model of the big bang. However, inflation itself seems to require fine-tuning for it to occur at all and for it to yield irregularities neither too small nor too large for galaxies to form. ...Recently in Scientific American, the required accuracy was stated to be 1 part in 10123. Furthermore, the ratio of the gravitational energy to the kinetic energy must equal to 1.00000 with a variation of 1 part in 100,000. This is an active area of research and the values may change over time. However, it appears that the essential requirements of very highly specified boundary conditions will be present in whatever model is finally confirmed for the big bang origin of the universe."

 

 

2.If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it? 

 

This is irrelevant. Even if God created a universe consisting of only one organism, the rest of that universe would exist to make that one organism possible.

If you admit that life is rare, then you should agree that it is unusual, or an unexpected occurrence, which should cause a curious scientist to look for good reason for why humans would be so specially required in the process, rather than to automatically attempt to dismiss and "explain-away" the implied significance of this strangeness that a physics principle is telling you something about.

 

3.Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002). 


The cited article is not freely available, as such investigating this claim is not practical. A few examples would help. Actually it is not the exact range that defines fine tuning, but the probability of getting in the right range.


How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.

In this case "fine" means close enough that the odds of getting into the right range are astronomically small. Mathematicians that specialize in probability theory have come to equate certain tiny probabilities as equivalent to saying "impossible".

 

4.The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental 

This argument assumes that Stringtheory is correct.

The paper's abstract says:

 We argue that if' string theory as an approach to the fundamental laws of physics is correct, then there is almost no room for anthropic arguments in cosmology. The quark and lepton masses and interaction strengths are determined.

There are plenty of reasons to question string theory.


It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997),that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. 

Talkorigins seems to have a good point with resonance window for helium fusion, but so what? As new discoveries are made some anthropic values are expected to fall by the way side, as well as new ones being added, such is the nature of science.

5. If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it.

While true, it does nothing to explain why part of the universe is suitable for life, so that we are here to think about it.

There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life.We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else. 

There is also no evidence that multiple universes exist, nor can there be any. This is the most convenient just so story ever invented by evolutionists, since it is a logical black hole into which any problem of improbability for Evolution can simply be thrown, to make it go away.


6.Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000). 

 

This is preposterous. Yes, God could have create life in a universe totally incompatible with it, but the fact that he did not is not an argument against His existence. The fact that God can do something does not require Him to do it. Besides if He had done it that way, Talkorigins would be arguing that the universe's incompatibility with life "is an argument against an omnipotent creator."

Actually, in one way God did "create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it." That is, He created life in a universe where it could not arise by chance or natural causes. So He created life in a universe where it is possible, but would be impossible without Him.

 

 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

http://creationwiki.org/CI200

 

jcgadfly wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html - DNA as language

Read more than apolegetics and see what happens.

It happens that i just see more irrational arguments around..... 

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_The_genetic_code_is_a_language

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:If you

angelobrazil wrote:

If you insist on a formal debunking, look at these. These are not original to me but I'm bot reinventing the wheel for you. Your arguments are old and oft-debunked.

I'm well aware of the arguments. Insisting they are "old" (an appeal to novelty perhaps) and "oft-debunked" is not a defense either. My arguments "debunk" your arguments which then are "debunked" by my arguments ad infinitum. So really...Who "debunked" who? I asked for how your argument was not question begging and even you links fail to answer my question.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Once more into the Breach old Friends!

 I'm not going to sort through this entire thread, especially since you keep breaking the quote function, so I am addressing only your first post.

2: The Fine tuning argument is based on circular reasoning along with baseless assertions of omniscience, so lets start with that.

You claim that if the Universe, or Earth on a more local level, were at all different than life would not exist here. While if the universe, again, or Earth, were different Our form of life may be impossible and it certainly would have prevented Humanity as we know it from arising due to cosmic Butteflies of Doooooooooooooooooooom******, this is ultimately meaningless unless you think there is some reason for life or humanity as we know it to be here. IE; you are already assuming that your god exists and has a desire for humanity as we know it before you even start to make this claim.

I will warn you now, any response you give, unless it can provide an answer to this, will be met with only the repeating of this paragraph, as this single paragraph is all I need to completely destroy your entire fine tuning argument. However, today has been a good day to live*******, so I will continue mutilating the burnt, smoldering, decaying carcass of your poor little argument.

*******Yes, you saw those asterisks right, and yes, I was referencing that.

You claim that if the universe were any different at all than life would be completely impossible. I want you, right now, to prove, 100% conclusively, that the universe, as we know it now, is in the only possible configuration that could ever possibly produce any form of life at all. Not just our form of life, carbon based DNA organisms which must intake energy produce from solar energy, but any form of life at all ever, even forms of life humanity has never ever ever imagined. It doesn't matter how alien the form of life is, whether it is Glowing Green Rocks or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, if any form of life could possibly exist in any of the possible universes, your argument is nonsense.

Tell me, right now, how the Gravitational Constant being 6.67301 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2 instead of 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2 prevents life from arising. Not just our form of life, but any possible form of life within all possibilities.

I'll wait.

While you are doing this, you need to also prove that this is at all relevant. So what if this universe is the only possible one that could support life. How is this relevant? We don't know what is going on outside of our universe, perhaps there are an infinite number of 'dead' universes out there and this is the only one with life. Does this mean our universe was fine tuned? No, it just means we developed here, which is common sense. If this is the only universe we could have developed in, how could we not have developed here?

This is why the Fine Tuning argument especially falls flat when you consider the Earth being the only planet so far discovered to harbour life. 1 out of, one moment, let me look down..... right, 1 out of 37500000000000000000000 possible planets (remember, by conservative estimates) is not fine tuned unless your god is an incompetent moron or is intentionally trying to make the universe look not fine tuned. 1:37500000000000000000000 is not a good batting average.

***We've Moved on to Beards.****

Also, I want to know how you calculated your 'probability' of the universe existing as it does, because every time I am presented with this argument I get a different 'probability'. I want to know exactly what equation you used to calculate it, and how you can justify this. Last time I checked, in order to calculate the probability of something you need to know how many other possibilities there are. You can't get this number from observation, otherwise the probability is 1:1, good odds I would say. And you can't have tried using every conceivably possible universe because even with just letting one constant fluctuate along the entire number line, you get a probability of 1:infinity. No, I suspect you got this probability from the same place all of these retarded arguments came from, your ass.

While you are at that, I want you to prove that there aren't alternate universes, because even if the probability of a universe being able to support our form of life is excruciatingly low, as AndromedasWake stated on one of his CrAP Debunked Videos, "Welcome to a Uni(Multi)verse of Large Numbers". Speaking of which, he addresses the Kalam Cosmological Argument too! YAY REDUNDANT REDUNDANCY! Commenting on how unlikely it is for the Earth to have existed where and how it does is meaningless in a Universe with 3000 visible galaxies, with an estimated 125 to 500 Billion possible Galaxies, each with possibly 100 billion stars, each with possibly (lets say 3 planets to be nice), giving us possibly 37500000000000000000000 planets in the Universe by the more conservative estimates. And this isn't even getting close to Drake.

Hell, there is evidence that Mars used to have water, bringing the number of potentially life supporting planets in the Solar system to 2 of 9108.

****Today is a good day to be a Reference. Ramming Speed!*****

The idea that we had 'good fortune' to develop on Earth or some other similar planet that can support life is idiocy. We developed on a planet that can support life because if it couldn't have supported life we wouldn't have been able to develop on it. The only reason humanity developing on Earth is special is if some being decreed it special, so you are already assuming your preferred conclusion.

Moving on.
1: Your Claim that everything that starts to exist must have a cause is blind speculation combined with an assertion of knowledge of what we cannot even begin to guess. For starters, nothing in our universe, when you get right down to it, has ever 'begun' to exist. Everything in this universe that we have ever seen is nothing more than a rearrangement of matter and energy which has, as far as we know, always existed within this universe. As for what happens beyond this universe, we have no idea. As stated by AndromedasWake.

Furthermore, To suspect that principles that govern and apply within our universe apply to our universe or beyond is baseless. We have no information at all about anything beyond our universe, and we don't know whether or not whatever whatsit might be beyond our universe will necessarily behave according to the laws our universe behaves according to. The Whatsit may have an entirely different form of causality or time, the latter being especially possible as time as we know it is naught but a function of our universe, therefore it is logical to think that time as we know it does Not or at least might not hold true outside of our universe.

What's that sound? That's the sound of an oncoming Tangent that really isn't!

One thing that has always bothered me is the idea that the Universal Expansion speeding up breaks the idea of a Cyclic Universe. This is simply unfounded, and is obvious for me as I have always thought that any Cyclical Universe would not follow a pattern of up and down Parabolas, but would follow a Sine Curve or other Trigonometric Function. In which case, all the Universal Expansion Speeding up would show is that we have not yet reached the Point of Inflection, which is good, because it means we have more time to Answer the Final Question.

The above is also not too far fetched if the Universal Expansion functions like a Spring. My own personal favorite idea is that as the Universe expands and Entropy becomes greater, the Acceleration due to 'Dark Energy/Matter' will gradually weaken until it is overcome by the Force of Gravity, and pulls everything back together into a Singularity, where Entropy is reversed until the Big Bang happens again. I have no data to support this, and thus don't believe it is even slightly correct, but it is fun to kick around the office when we aren't painting Mustaches on the Buddy Christ**.

*****The Second Sentance is not from the same movie as the first, can anyone guess what movie it is from?

Even if it doesn't follow a Sine Curve however, this proves nothing, for all we know, once the Universe has hit Cosmic Homeostasis and Pure Entropic Heat Death, the Universal Laws could break down and bring the Universe crashing together again, or the Universe could, no longer having the energy to hold itself together, dissipate into the Multiverse, where the Entropy is reversed and new Universes are born. We simply don't know.

Likewise, we don't know what the Big Bang was. There are several prominent ideas, however none of them have evidence to support them. For all we know, the Big Bang could have just been a transition from one state to another. Before you try to mangle the Laws of Thermodynamics against this, I would like to remind you that different states can operate according to different laws, so the Laws of Thermodynamics of this state of the Universe don't necessarily have need to be applied to the other state(s). Despite this, they still could have, the state we transitioned out of could have been a 'Dark'-Verse composed of Entropy that slowly wound itself back up into Energy. We don't know, and you claiming that you do is tiring and unfounded.

**We don't paint Mustaches on the Buddy Christ anymore.***

3: Your comment on DNA is wonderfully quaint, especially given that we can fit the entirety of a Human Genome on a CD*, very complex, that is. DNA is actually fairly simple, especially as far as 'codes' go. It is amazing that DNA, being as simple as it is, can produce and maintain something so complex, however it doesn't need to be miraculous. 

*Yes, this means that the Human Genome is less complex than the initial launch version of World of Warcraft. You can all start hating yourselves now.

You fully demonstrate your ignorance of modern views of Biology when you assert that the Odds of DNA arising by chance are small enough to be ignored, because fortunately enough for us, DNA doesn't behave according to Chance, it behaves According to Chemistry. Likewise, the idea that the Universal Constants being this way by chance is small is of a similar sort of idiocy, because the Universal Constants aren't governed (as far as we know) by chance, but by Physics.

******My Spell Checker tries to correct this to 'Departmentalization'.

I have heard at least one idea presented that Universes naturally reproduce other Universes within themselves, and that these 'reproduced' Universes essentially 'mutate' and even follow a sort of evolutionary development. This is a pretty cool idea. It of course sits with all of the other pre-Big Bang ideas as cool ideas without evidence, but it is still pretty awesome.

Ultimately however, all of your arguments are just Arguments from Incredulity. "Because I cannot imagine life existing any other way, clearly it is impossible, thus my god must have done it!!1!" you scream to the heavens, and, bemused, we have entertained you thus far. However for me, your charm has begun to wear thin, and if you counter my post with a few more links to idiots speaking of those which none of us know anything about as if they were gods themselves, I shall be extremely disappointed.

In Short, all of your claims would require omniscience to make, which you don't have.

Oh, by the way, even if you can prove that life can only come about in a universe like ours, and that the probability of this happening is excruciatingly low, this doesn't prove your god exists, because improbable doesn't mean impossible, it means that other one. Now, if you excuse me, I need to stop being a sofa, I have a meeting with the Ruler of the Universe.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: You claim that if

 

Quote:
You claim that if the Universe, or Earth on a more local level, were at all different than life would not exist here.
No. I claim the Universe would not exist at all. Fact is that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

 

Quote:
While if the universe, again, or Earth, were different Our form of life may be impossible and it certainly would have prevented Humanity as we know it from arising due to cosmic Butteflies of Doooooooooooooooooooom******, this is ultimately meaningless unless you think there is some reason for life or humanity as we know it to be here.

 

Oh , there is absolutely a reason we are here. And the bible tells us why God made us.

Quote:
IE; you are already assuming that your god exists and has a desire for humanity as we know it before you even start to make this claim.
This doesn't take away, disproof or discredit  the argument.

 

Quote:
I will warn you now, any response you give, unless it can provide an answer to this, will be met with only the repeating of this paragraph, as this single paragraph is all I need to completely destroy your entire fine tuning argument.

 

You can only destroy my argument, if you are able to disproof the scientific findings, that the universe needs to be fine-tuned, and actually IS fine-tuned, to host life.

 

Quote:
However, today has been a good day to live*******, so I will continue mutilating the burnt, smoldering, decaying carcass of your poor little argument.

 

quit a impossible task... ya take your mouth full, don't ya ? you would have to disproof science first , and the fact, that the universe must be fine tuned to host life.

 

Quote:
You claim that if the universe were any different at all than life would be completely impossible.

 

Who claims that, is science, not me.

 

Quote:
I want you, right now, to prove, 100% conclusively, that the universe, as we know it now, is in the only possible configuration that could ever possibly produce any form of life at all.

 

There is tons of material available on the internet. I have made a nice presentation of different sources. Just go through it, study the scientific facts. There is no need to doubt about the data. It is common knowledge, and atheist in general don't question it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

 

Quote:
Not just our form of life, carbon based DNA organisms which must intake energy produce from solar energy, but any form of life at all ever, even forms of life humanity has never ever ever imagined. It doesn't matter how alien the form of life is, whether it is Glowing Green Rocks or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, if any form of life could possibly exist in any of the possible universes, your argument is nonsense.

 

Even a universe, which doesn't host life, needs to be fine-tuned , to exist. The expansion constants are fine-tuned as well... Without fine-tuning of the expansion constant, for example, no universe would exist.

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

 

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

 

Quote:
Tell me, right now, how the Gravitational Constant being 6.67301 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2 instead of 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2 prevents life from arising. Not just our form of life, but any possible form of life within all possibilities. While you are doing this, you need to also prove that this is at all relevant. I'll wait.

 

you don't need to wait too much. Here the answer. At post nr.13 i treat the gravitational constant. There is also a fine book at googlebooks, which you can  read and get closer information. what would happen, is basically this : gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

 

Quote:
So what if this universe is the only possible one that could support life. How is this relevant? We don't know what is going on outside of our universe, perhaps there are an infinite number of 'dead' universes out there and this is the only one with life. Does this mean our universe was fine tuned? No, it just means we developed here, which is common sense. If this is the only universe we could have developed in, how could we not have developed here?

 

the same effort of escape of the atheist dilemma through the fine-tune argument, using the multiverse argument, is made by a number of preeminent atheism propagandists , like Richard Dawkins, Atkins, and others. The argument falls short, however. I have treated this already at my forum :

 

The Multiverse proposal - a valid hypotheses ?

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm

 

the multiverse theory, while pretty, is not scientific. It’s just not. It sounds scientific. It speaks the language and does the dance. But it’s not scientific at all because it is not testable. A lot of evolutionary psychology is unscientific as well by virtue of being untestable. University of Texas theoretical physicist Stephen Weinberg told Discover, “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator. What it does is remove one of the arguments for it.” But it does not do that. Rather, the multiverse hypothesis is a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Whereas there may be spiritual reasons to reject the Creator, there is not a scientific or logical one.

 

http://www.reasons.org/do-infinite-universes-explain-fine-tuning

 

A monkey randomly hitting keys on a keyboard will eventually produce the entire collection of Shakespeare's works–at least if the monkey types for an infinite amount of time. The truth of the previous statement relies on (at least) two conditions. First, the monkey must actually use all the keys in a random fashion. Second, but more important, the keyboard must contain all the necessary letters and punctuation to produce Shakespeare's works.

Quote:
This is why the Fine Tuning argument especially falls flat when you consider the Earth being the only planet so far discovered to harbour life. 1 out of, one moment, let me look down..... right, 1 out of 37500000000000000000000 possible planets (remember, by conservative estimates) is not fine tuned unless your god is an incompetent moron or is intentionally trying to make the universe look not fine tuned. 1:37500000000000000000000 is not a good batting average.
You don't know what God's goals were, to make such a objection. He could have made all the universe, just to host a unicellular organism. So what ? He is the one that sets his objectives, and sets his goals. You forget btw. that the universe could only arise, if the expansion constant were in place, amongst other parameters.

 

Quote:
Also, I want to know how you calculated your 'probability' of the universe existing as it does, because every time I am presented with this argument I get a different 'probability'. I want to know exactly what equation you used to calculate it, and how you can justify this. Last time I checked, in order to calculate the probability of something you need to know how many other possibilities there are. You can't get this number from observation, otherwise the probability is 1:1, good odds I would say.

 

the probability is less than one to the number of all sand corns on our planet. Is that not a enough small probability ? There are more than one hundred constants, that must be fine-tuned. If you want to believe in miracles and fairy tales, go ahead. BTW. are you not a member of the RATIONAL response squad ? then i suggest, keep your thinking rational.  

 

Quote:
And you can't have tried using every conceivably possible universe because even with just letting one constant fluctuate along the entire number line, you get a probability of 1:infinity. No, I suspect you got this probability from the same place all of these retarded arguments came from, your ass.

I do not spend my time with whom needs to insult me, to make its point .

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

If you insist on a formal debunking, look at these. These are not original to me but I'm bot reinventing the wheel for you. Your arguments are old and oft-debunked.

I'm well aware of the arguments. Insisting they are "old" (an appeal to novelty perhaps) and "oft-debunked" is not a defense either. My arguments "debunk" your arguments which then are "debunked" by my arguments ad infinitum. So really...Who "debunked" who? I asked for how your argument was not question begging and even you links fail to answer my question.

Yes his links fail. Why did you attribute my post to him as a post to you?

I brought up talkorigins - he brought up apologetics.

He also hasn't explained why so much of this universe that is fine tuned for humans is trying to kill us.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:ubuntuAnyone

jcgadfly wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

If you insist on a formal debunking, look at these. These are not original to me but I'm bot reinventing the wheel for you. Your arguments are old and oft-debunked.

I'm well aware of the arguments. Insisting they are "old" (an appeal to novelty perhaps) and "oft-debunked" is not a defense either. My arguments "debunk" your arguments which then are "debunked" by my arguments ad infinitum. So really...Who "debunked" who? I asked for how your argument was not question begging and even you links fail to answer my question.

Yes his links fail. Why did you attribute my post to him as a post to you?

I brought up talkorigins - he brought up apologetics.

He also hasn't explained why so much of this universe that is fine tuned for humans is trying to kill us.

Talk origins made claims, and i have answered them appropriately - so what's wrong with apologetics anyway ?

the " poor design " argument is not new to me. I have treated it at my forum :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/intelligent-design-f4/argument-from-poor-design-t161.htm


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Sorry...quote confusion. I

Sorry...quote confusion. I apologize.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Sorry...quote confusion. I apologize.

 

 

No worries.

I'm old and confuse easily.

Hey angelo, Why is this universe that's been fine tuned for us by your God trying to kill us?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
the bible

The bible is your claim that you know why god created us or has instore for us, yet the bible is wrong on so many accounts, from "Creation" of the universe, earth, sun, plants and of course humans, it has many other problems with the flood, talking burning bushes, talking snakes, talking donkeys, historical inaccuracies, yet this is bible is what your using as knowing why we are here? Well sorry if the bible is wrong on so many accounts, it's gonna be wrong on this account as well.

As for the rest of your arguments you haven't presented a valid argument as to what the actual changes to the properties of the universe are that won't allow life at all. Is it 1 percent change, is it 10 percent change is it 40 percent change? what is the actual percentage of change, and can those properties actually change or are they what they are, the only possibility for any universe period? Do we know? nope, we have 1 universe to play with and the results of only 1 universe. however you love links so much here you go, http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf he also has a program at the end that allows you to play with the constants of the universe.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
DNA is clearly NOT the sort

DNA is clearly NOT the sort of code devised by an intelligent being to record some pre-existing information, which typically has no obvious physical relationship to the information being encoded. It simply describes a correspondence between particular amino acids and one or more specific 'triplets' (chains of three nucleic acids), due to physical features, like matching jigsaw pieces.

The triplet sequence of nucleic acids which 'specify' a specific amino acid in a protein is there because that sequence has a structure which physically matches or complements the structure of the amino acid, so that particular acid attaches to that location on the DNA strand preferentially to the other amino acids. 

This attraction between small strings of nucleic acids and regions of protein molecules also allows us to imagine scenarios where the code for a particular protein could influence the structure of a forming strand of DNS or RNA, so allowing us to see, in principle at least, how the coding emerged.

Because the linkage between triplet sequence and amino acid is not a rigid and pre-defined specification, there are actually many variations of the coding, although some linkages are naturally more common, than others.

Genuinely new information can only come from some sort of random process, whether in a brain or nature, otherwise one is stuck with minor re-arrangements of existing knowledge. Random change ('mutation') followed by rigorous selection according to some criteria, such as 'maximum reproductive success in a specific environment' as with evolution, is the way really new useful information accumulates. 

Creative problem-solving requires exploration of the full range of all possible variations on the current state, with minimum reference to existing ideas. Some conscience direction may help to avoid wasting time on really blind alleys, but risks missing solutions that require an approach not 'obviously' related to currently known solutions.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
To repeat the response to

To repeat the response to another part of the OP, even if we require that everything have a cause, that is not a problem unless one assumes that causes must be greater in some measure that the effects they produce, which leads inevitably to a true infinite regress problem.

Once you allow that 'causes' may be on average lesser in magnitude and duration than their 'effect', then the extent and duration of a nominally infinite chain ay be quite finite, in the same way that the summation of infinite convergent series of quantities can be shown to be finite, as in the standard example:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ... <without limit> = 2.0.

Infinite regress is a strong argument against God as a creator. Convergent infinite regress requires that the first cause be of infinitesimal scale, rather than infinite.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:The bible

latincanuck wrote:

The bible is your claim that you know why god created us or has instore for us, yet the bible is wrong on so many accounts, from "Creation" of the universe, earth, sun, plants and of course humans, it has many other problems with the flood, talking burning bushes, talking snakes, talking donkeys, historical inaccuracies, yet this is bible is what your using as knowing why we are here? Well sorry if the bible is wrong on so many accounts, it's gonna be wrong on this account as well.

Well, you touch here a number of points, and these of course cannot be discussed insight in a few words and paragraphs. But if you want to open a new topic, i discuss each point with you, no problem. The anthropic principle btw. is not disproved through the bible ( i mean, if the bible is accurate and tells the truth, or not, doesn't change anything in the fact that the universe is finely tuned, and evidences a intelligent creator )

latincanuck wrote:

As for the rest of your arguments you haven't presented a valid argument as to what the actual changes to the properties of the universe are that won't allow life at all.

Well, thats a plain ignorant assertion and argument. BTW. its not me that says the universe is fine-tuned, but science. Do you want to argue with the scientific evidence, and know it better ? That shows just bad will to face and accept the facts.

latincanuck wrote:

Is it 1 percent change, is it 10 percent change is it 40 percent change? what is the actual percentage of change, and can those properties actually change or are they what they are, the only possibility for any universe period?

i won't do the work for you. You have the info on hand. Youst read it.

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/156-tu.html

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

latincanuck wrote:

Do we know? nope, we have 1 universe to play with and the results of only 1 universe. however you love links so much here you go, http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf he also has a program at the end that allows you to play with the constants of the universe.

it seems you haven't read the paper of Stenger. He gives you the constants you were asking for, too. And he sticks to the multi-verse, which brings us right back to the middle age, where they were inquiring how many angels there might where living in heaven... less scientific than that, it won't go.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: Well,

angelobrazil wrote:

 Well, thats a plain ignorant assertion and argument. BTW. its not me that says the universe is fine-tuned, but science. Do you want to argue with the scientific evidence, and know it better ? That shows just bad will to face and accept the facts.

What facts? we don't know all the possibilities that will allow for life to arise, in a different universe with different constants it could be life is silicone based a nd not carbon based, you have yet to properly present the what variations won't allow any form of life to arise. You just use other people work, in a debate you would actually show the work, here, and explain it, so far you have not done that, you just link apologetics and obvious biased sites not scientific sites with proper journals, if your going to use science then use scientific locations not apologetic sites.

You should your making the argument that it is and that no other possible life forms are possible if the constants are different.

Quote:

it seems you haven't read the paper of Stenger. He gives you the constants you were asking for, too. And he sticks to the multi-verse, which brings us right back to the middle age, where they were inquiring how many angels there might where living in heaven... less scientific than that, it won't go.

I said there was a program there to play with the variation of the numbers of the constants of strong, weak forces, electromagnetic force and gravity, that was it. Who said I agreed completely with that paper? you don't read I stated did you?

Second what is to say that the constants can changable? You says these properties can change? but are just that the only properties possible with the given amount of energy within this universe? can you show me, properly show me that it is possible? I don't think you can.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Fascinating that an article

Fascinating that an article showing that the 'Fine-tuning' argument does not support the designer idea particularly well is somehow supporting a position pretty much based on the opposite assumption...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:DNA is

BobSpence1 wrote:

DNA is clearly NOT the sort of code devised by an intelligent being to record some pre-existing information, which typically has no obvious physical relationship to the information being encoded. It simply describes a correspondence between particular amino acids and one or more specific 'triplets' (chains of three nucleic acids), due to physical features, like matching jigsaw pieces.

The triplet sequence of nucleic acids which 'specify' a specific amino acid in a protein is there because that sequence has a structure which physically matches or complements the structure of the amino acid, so that particular acid attaches to that location on the DNA strand preferentially to the other amino acids. 

This attraction between small strings of nucleic acids and regions of protein molecules also allows us to imagine scenarios where the code for a particular protein could influence the structure of a forming strand of DNS or RNA, so allowing us to see, in principle at least, how the coding emerged.

Because the linkage between triplet sequence and amino acid is not a rigid and pre-defined specification, there are actually many variations of the coding, although some linkages are naturally more common, than others.

Genuinely new information can only come from some sort of random process, whether in a brain or nature, otherwise one is stuck with minor re-arrangements of existing knowledge. Random change ('mutation') followed by rigorous selection according to some criteria, such as 'maximum reproductive success in a specific environment' as with evolution, is the way really new useful information accumulates. 

Creative problem-solving requires exploration of the full range of all possible variations on the current state, with minimum reference to existing ideas. Some conscience direction may help to avoid wasting time on really blind alleys, but risks missing solutions that require an approach not 'obviously' related to currently known solutions.

 

Do you think, you are able to solve, what other 30 skeptics were not ?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

 

The peer-reviewed article of Stephen C. Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, tells us another story.... 

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Since the 1960s, mathematical biologists have realized that Shannon's theory could be applied to the analysis of DNA and proteins to measure the information-carrying capacity of these macromolecules. Since DNA contains the assembly instructions for building proteins, the information-processing system in the cell represents a kind of communication channel (Yockey 1992:110). Further, DNA conveys information via specifically arranged sequences of nucleotide bases. 

The ease with which information theory applies to molecular biology has created confusion about the type of information that DNA and proteins possess. Sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA, or amino acids in a protein, are highly improbable and thus have large information-carrying capacities. But, like meaningful sentences or lines of computer code, genes and proteins are also specified with respect to function. Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191

Dawkins (1986:139) has noted that scientific theories can rely on only so much “luck” before they cease to be credible. The neutral theory of evolution, which, by its own logic, prevents natural selection from playing a role in generating genetic information until after the fact, relies on entirely too much luck. The sensitivity of proteins to functional loss, the need for long proteins to build new cell types and animals, the need for whole new systems of proteins to service new cell types, the probable brevity of the Cambrian explosion relative to mutation rates--all suggest the immense improbability (and implausibility) of any scenario for the origination of Cambrian genetic information that relies upon random variation alone unassisted by natural selection.

 

 


 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

 Well, thats a plain ignorant assertion and argument. BTW. its not me that says the universe is fine-tuned, but science. Do you want to argue with the scientific evidence, and know it better ? That shows just bad will to face and accept the facts.

What facts? we don't know all the possibilities that will allow for life to arise, in a different universe with different constants it could be life is silicone based a nd not carbon based, you have yet to properly present the what variations won't allow any form of life to arise. You just use other people work, in a debate you would actually show the work, here, and explain it, so far you have not done that, you just link apologetics and obvious biased sites not scientific sites with proper journals, if your going to use science then use scientific locations not apologetic sites.

You should your making the argument that it is and that no other possible life forms are possible if the constants are different.

Quote:

it seems you haven't read the paper of Stenger. He gives you the constants you were asking for, too. And he sticks to the multi-verse, which brings us right back to the middle age, where they were inquiring how many angels there might where living in heaven... less scientific than that, it won't go.

I said there was a program there to play with the variation of the numbers of the constants of strong, weak forces, electromagnetic force and gravity, that was it. Who said I agreed completely with that paper? you don't read I stated did you?

Second what is to say that the constants can changable? You says these properties can change? but are just that the only properties possible with the given amount of energy within this universe? can you show me, properly show me that it is possible? I don't think you can.

 

It seems you do not consider, that even a universe to form, it needs fine-tuned constants, like the expansion constant, therefore, universes to form only by random chance is very unlikely. And, why should a universe come into existence, rather than not to come into existence ? Is " nothing " able to form " something " solely by chance ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

Fine-tuning is also evident in the "initial conditions" or the beginning state of the universe. The initial conditions of the universe include such information as the expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe’s expansion and even the degree of its entropy.

Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:It seems

angelobrazil wrote:

It seems you do not consider, that even a universe to form, it needs fine-tuned constants, like the expansion constant, therefore, universes to form only by random chance is very unlikely.

Just because something cannot happen any other way, does not mean it is necessarily designed. For 2 + 2 = 4, does one need a fined-tuned 2, or does it merely precipitate from the fact if one adds 2 to itself that one gets 4?

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

DNA is clearly NOT the sort of code devised by an intelligent being to record some pre-existing information, which typically has no obvious physical relationship to the information being encoded. It simply describes a correspondence between particular amino acids and one or more specific 'triplets' (chains of three nucleic acids), due to physical features, like matching jigsaw pieces.

The triplet sequence of nucleic acids which 'specify' a specific amino acid in a protein is there because that sequence has a structure which physically matches or complements the structure of the amino acid, so that particular acid attaches to that location on the DNA strand preferentially to the other amino acids. 

This attraction between small strings of nucleic acids and regions of protein molecules also allows us to imagine scenarios where the code for a particular protein could influence the structure of a forming strand of DNS or RNA, so allowing us to see, in principle at least, how the coding emerged.

Because the linkage between triplet sequence and amino acid is not a rigid and pre-defined specification, there are actually many variations of the coding, although some linkages are naturally more common, than others.

Genuinely new information can only come from some sort of random process, whether in a brain or nature, otherwise one is stuck with minor re-arrangements of existing knowledge. Random change ('mutation') followed by rigorous selection according to some criteria, such as 'maximum reproductive success in a specific environment' as with evolution, is the way really new useful information accumulates. 

Creative problem-solving requires exploration of the full range of all possible variations on the current state, with minimum reference to existing ideas. Some conscience direction may help to avoid wasting time on really blind alleys, but risks missing solutions that require an approach not 'obviously' related to currently known solutions.

 

Do you think, you are able to solve, what other 30 skeptics were not ?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

 

The peer-reviewed article of Stephen C. Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, tells us another story.... 

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

It is indeed a virtually impossible task to explain to someone so entrenched in religion-inspired misconceptions about science and the scientific process and current scientific understanding of these topics in a way that they will find convincing, as the futile 'debate' in this thread demonstrates. Posting links to sites similarly committed to the anti-evolution, creationist point of view are really not making your case in any way here.

I see little point in continuing this discussion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

 Well, that's a plain ignorant assertion and argument. BTW. its not me that says the universe is fine-tuned, but science. Do you want to argue with the scientific evidence, and know it better ? That shows just bad will to face and accept the facts.

What facts? we don't know all the possibilities that will allow for life to arise, in a different universe with different constants it could be life is silicone based a nd not carbon based, you have yet to properly present the what variations won't allow any form of life to arise. You just use other people work, in a debate you would actually show the work, here, and explain it, so far you have not done that, you just link apologetics and obvious biased sites not scientific sites with proper journals, if your going to use science then use scientific locations not apologetic sites.

You should your making the argument that it is and that no other possible life forms are possible if the constants are different.

Quote:

it seems you haven't read the paper of Stenger. He gives you the constants you were asking for, too. And he sticks to the multi-verse, which brings us right back to the middle age, where they were inquiring how many angels there might where living in heaven... less scientific than that, it won't go.

I said there was a program there to play with the variation of the numbers of the constants of strong, weak forces, electromagnetic force and gravity, that was it. Who said I agreed completely with that paper? you don't read I stated did you?

Second what is to say that the constants can changeable? You says these properties can change? but are just that the only properties possible with the given amount of energy within this universe? can you show me, properly show me that it is possible? I don't think you can.

 

It seems you do not consider, that even a universe to form, it needs fine-tuned constants, like the expansion constant, therefore, universes to form only by random chance is very unlikely. And, why should a universe come into existence, rather than not to come into existence ? Is " nothing " able to form " something " solely by chance ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

Fine-tuning is also evident in the "initial conditions" or the beginning state of the universe. The initial conditions of the universe include such information as the expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe’s expansion and even the degree of its entropy.

Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

 

Any universe that may have come into existence would have to be fine tuned for that universe to exists, and that's the argument for any type of universe to exist, and it would be viewed in your eyes as fine tuned to exist. that's the problem with the god must have done it, we don't know what other types of universes could exist, we don't have another universe to study, we only have this one, and we don't know all the possibilities for life to emerge and we do not know all the initial conditions, these properties maybe the only ones possible given the initial conditions, even scientists in many of the links posted, including Stephan hawkings have stated this, it's possible these are it. We merely speculate at what may have been. If we were silicone based (another possibility for life to emerge) then we would be saying it is fine tuned for our type of life. In the end you give how improbable it is for this universe to exist, but you seem to interchange improbable with impossible, they are not mutually exclusive, impossible is cannot happen, improbable is unlikely to happen, but could.

As for density we don't even know the total density of the universe, there are calculations but those calculations for the big crunch to occur we don't even have enough density for that to occur, we need a lot more before that happens, and that's for this existing universe to collapse http://www.pnas.org/content/95/11/5956.full.pdf

At one point all the unifying forces were one, the big bang separated them, can you show me that with the given amount of energy that  those parameters can change? Can you show me that any other possibility given what we know of our universe is possible, or is it as many scientists speculate the only possibility given for the amount of energy/matter in our universe? Since you don't have another universe to play with or indicate otherwise all other possibilities are mere speculation, the fine tune argument is an argument of ignorance, it's is fine tuned because we view it as fine tune and because we have no other possible universe to study.

I looked outside my window I saw a lady in a pink dress I have never seen before, do you know how highly improbably that is that I saw that lady in a pink dress today on September 6th, 2009 at 11:19 AM in Etobicoke, Canada, north American Continent, on earth, the third planet from the sun, in a solar system with in the milky-way galaxy? Think off all the things that have had to occur for me to see that one lady in a pink dress at this precise time at this precise location. Change any one thing and that would have never occurred, it's highly improbably, but not impossible, and that's our universe, it's highly improbably that it may have occurred like this and life to emerge after 11.5 billion years after it occurred, but it's not impossible. Then again maybe the properties of this universe are just that the only possible properties for this universe, can you show me otherwise?


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is indeed a virtually impossible task to explain to someone so entrenched in religion-inspired misconceptions about science and the scientific process and current scientific understanding of these topics in a way that they will find convincing, as the futile 'debate' demonstrates.

In other words, you throw the towel ..... You admit, you do not have any compelling , reasonable answer, to refute the presented facts..... 

These facts are scientific, and not religiously-inspired, as you claim. If they would, you would take the chance to refute them. Your problem is, that these facts do not fit in your preconceived wish and will of no God to be necessary for life. Information always requires a intelligent mind.

Wiki states right in the beginning :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules.   http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf   DNA is not just a molecule or collection of proteins. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism in which instructions for the assembly of a complete organism are symbolically represented by a four-letter alphabet (A, T, C, G). In the same way that English has a 26-letter alphabet and computer languages have a two letter alphabet (1, 0), DNA has four symbols.   These facts are so compelling, that life long atheists like Antony Flew converted and finally believed in God. Antony Flew was an honest thinker who ultimately acknowledged the existence of God.   http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/scientists-who-converted-from-atheism-to-theism-t52.htm  

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is indeed a virtually impossible task to explain to someone so entrenched in religion-inspired misconceptions about science and the scientific process and current scientific understanding of these topics in a way that they will find convincing, as the futile 'debate' demonstrates.

In other words, you throw the towel ..... You admit, you do not have any compelling , reasonable answer, to refute the presented facts..... 

These facts are scientific, and not religiously-inspired, as you claim. If they would, you would take the chance to refute them. Your problem is, that these facts do not fit in your preconceived wish and will of no God to be necessary for life. Information always requires a intelligent mind.

Wiki states right in the beginning :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules.   http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf   DNA is not just a molecule or collection of proteins. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism in which instructions for the assembly of a complete organism are symbolically represented by a four-letter alphabet (A, T, C, G). In the same way that English has a 26-letter alphabet and computer languages have a two letter alphabet (1, 0), DNA has four symbols.   These facts are so compelling, that life long atheists like Antony Flew converted and finally believed in God. Antony Flew was an honest thinker who ultimately acknowledged the existence of God.   http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/scientists-who-converted-from-atheism-to-theism-t52.htm  

 

1a. Wikipedia is not a source. It's a place to go to get sources.

1b. Being "compared to" a code does not mean it is a code anymore than someone being called strong as an ox is being called an ox.

2. Anthony Flew is currently a senile man who had the misfortune of having a book written about him by a fraudster. Even at that, he only became a deist. Why do Christians claim him as a victory? Do you really need to support what you believe is ultimate truth with lies?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1a. Wikipedia

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. Wikipedia is not a source. It's a place to go to get sources.

1b. Being "compared to" a code does not mean it is a code anymore than someone being called strong as an ox is being called an ox.

2. Anthony Flew is currently a senile man who had the misfortune of having a book written about him by a fraudster. Even at that, he only became a deist. Why do Christians claim him as a victory? Do you really need to support what you believe is ultimate truth with lies?

That's the problem trying to get someone to understand the fundamental problems with their understandings but won't because they cannot or will not change their misunderstanding, compared to and is are 2 different things, improbable and impossible are 2 different things. Bringing about an illogical concept of god and saying it is, such as god does not need a creator but everything else does, well is illogical, but angelo refuses to admit such a problem. To say nothing can occur naturally that all things need a creator (even though earth, and everything in the universe has been shown to form naturally) and that god is the exception to that rule is illogical. But in his mind it's not, and a person that can make exceptions to the rules so that his world view fits his mind cannot fathom an existance without such said deity. I cannot accept illogical deities, god is one of them, and until a probable and logical explanation to god comes to, there is no reason to be believe in such deity.

We can give you all the answers you will just simply ignore them and state over and over again that fine tune is due to god and that is the only possibility, we can give you all the other possibilities that make far better choices than an illogical god but you will refuse to acknowledge them as you have throughout the entire conversation because in the end they eliminate the possibility for your god.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Attention Duelists!!! My Hair can Kick God's Ass!!!

Me wrote:
I was going to look into some other sources, after finding several responses to 'the universe is fine tuned refutation' on Google, several of which were published articles from various universities, but I decided not to in favor of mangling this with simple logic.


I was going to do that, and even wrote up a long winded post for you to ignore, but I decided against that since you likely won't read it. So, the Abridged Post, because screw the rules, I have green hair.

First off;
Quote:
I do not spend my time with whom needs to insult me, to make its point .


I didn't insult you, I merely pointed out that you pulled your probability from your ass.
I also pointed out how I know this, because actually calculating the probability is impossible.
If you want to contend this point, show me the equation. Don't link to some thread, post it here.

And while you are at it, grow some thicker skin. This is a debate.

Now then, I can answer your argument in only a few very small paragraphs, really, I only need one;

I am addressing this point;
Quote:
Oh , there is absolutely a reason we are here. And the bible tells us why God made us. 
This doesn't take away, disproof or discredit the argument.

Which is your response to me explaining the circular reasoning inherent in your argument, so I will spell it out again as simply as I can.

The improbability of the universe being configured to support human life is utterly meaningless unless you can prove there was some need or desire or purpose for humanity being here. You would invoke your beloved god for this purpose, however this is circular reasoning as you argument, now necessitating this purpose, is supposed to prove the purpose giver. Without some purpose, the imporbability means nothing. It is improbable that I role 3847283 when using several hundred thousand 20 sided dice, but this won't mean god made the dice roll how they did if I do role that, or any of the other possible numbers. It is only a miracle if I call the number I will role before I role.

You cannot fire an arrow into a wall, paint a bullseye around it, and then claim to be a marksman.

You are a puddle contemplating the fit of his hole, ignoring the possibility that you are fitted to the universe, not the other way around.

Oh, by the way, if I can't posit the idea of a multiverse, you cannot posit the idea of your god, because they have about as much evidence to support each other. That was kind of the point that I was trying to make. I don't actually believe the multiverse hypothesis is correct, however even the possibility of it being correct destroys your argument, which is predicated on the necessity of your god by there being no other possible way for the universe to be this way.

Oh also, when you make a probability claim, despite you never actually showing where you got this number from, you are admitting that it is possible. Had you read to the last part of my post you would have seen this. Improbable does not equal impossible, it means that other one. Now if you would excuse me, I need to go beat up a bowl of Petunias.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf DNA is not just a molecule or collection of proteins. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism in which instructions for the assembly of a complete organism are symbolically represented by a four-letter alphabet (A, T, C, G). In the same way that English has a 26-letter alphabet and computer languages have a two letter alphabet (1, 0), DNA has four symbols.

You haven't presented this argument in a very succinct manner, so it's hard to pinpoint exactly what you're trying to say, but it sounds like: DNA is a code. All codes are intelligently designed. Therefore, DNA is intelligently designed. 

One of the problems with this is that you don't know that DNA is intelligently designed, so if DNA is a code, you obviously can't beg the question by saying that all codes are intelligently designed. 

So, maybe you're asserting that because all "codes" that we know the origins of are designed, it follows that DNA is intelligently designed? That seems like a lame inductive argument, especially when human languages are hardly even comparable to DNA. So, maybe you're equivocating two different definitions of "code?"

You also keep emphasizing that the four nucleotides in DNA are like letters; therefore, DNA is a language; therefore, it's designed? I'm not sure how that gets you anywhere but more fallacy of equivocations and non sequiturs. I mean, heck, you're arguing using an analogy to begin with. That's already pretty lame.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1a. Wikipedia

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. Wikipedia is not a source. It's a place to go to get sources.

So what ? is what i cited from Wiki false , or wrong ?

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. Being "compared to" a code does not mean it is a code anymore than someone being called strong as an ox is being called an ox..


Do you want to argue with what science holds as a unquestionable fact ?

http://www.yourgenome.org/downloads/detailed_genes_dnainstruc_pdf.pdf

Specific sections of DNA carry the instructions to make other molecules, usually proteins. These lengths of DNA are called genes. To interpret the DNA code, the cell first makes a copy of the DNA segment to be read. The copy then travels to another part of the cell, where the code is used to assemble a chain of protein subunits.

These processes are called transcription and translation.

 

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/deciphering.html

Before the genetic code could be deciphered, before scientists could understand the process by which deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) directed the synthesis of proteins, they had to resolve a final mystery: as Francis Crick and other researchers insisted, there must be a messenger to transmit genetic information from the cell nucleus to the cytoplasm, a messenger that was almost certainly made of ribonucleic acid (RNA).

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Anthony Flew is currently a senile man who had the misfortune of having a book written about him by a fraudster. Even at that, he only became a deist. Why do Christians claim him as a victory? Do you really need to support what you believe is ultimate truth with lies?

It seems you are desperate also on this ...... 

Why do you not just see the video. Of course, Antony Flew is a victory. It was even spread that he converted, because he was not lucid anymore.... But his video is a proof it isn't exactly like atheists wish to be..... 

He is btw. not the only one , i have listed a few others.... 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/scientists-who-converted-from-atheism-to-theism-t52.htm


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:jcgadfly

latincanuck wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. Wikipedia is not a source. It's a place to go to get sources.

1b. Being "compared to" a code does not mean it is a code anymore than someone being called strong as an ox is being called an ox.

2. Anthony Flew is currently a senile man who had the misfortune of having a book written about him by a fraudster. Even at that, he only became a deist. Why do Christians claim him as a victory? Do you really need to support what you believe is ultimate truth with lies?

That's the problem trying to get someone to understand the fundamental problems with their understandings but won't because they cannot or will not change their misunderstanding, compared to and is are 2 different things, improbable and impossible are 2 different things. Bringing about an illogical concept of god and saying it is, such as god does not need a creator but everything else does, well is illogical, but angelo refuses to admit such a problem. To say nothing can occur naturally that all things need a creator (even though earth, and everything in the universe has been shown to form naturally) and that god is the exception to that rule is illogical. But in his mind it's not, and a person that can make exceptions to the rules so that his world view fits his mind cannot fathom an existance without such said deity. I cannot accept illogical deities, god is one of them, and until a probable and logical explanation to god comes to, there is no reason to be believe in such deity.

We can give you all the answers you will just simply ignore them and state over and over again that fine tune is due to god and that is the only possibility, we can give you all the other possibilities that make far better choices than an illogical god but you will refuse to acknowledge them as you have throughout the entire conversation because in the end they eliminate the possibility for your god.

You repeat the same arguments, which i have already rejected. Irrational, and not logic, is to believe, that something can pop up from nothing. This is your standpoint, and it simply makes no sense. Its plain wrong, logically speaking. You try also to invalidate the Fine-tuning argument with questioning the fine-tuning constants. Science doesn't do that. Science admits these fine-tune constants. They are there, and they are correct. The universe is fine-tuned, and you have no rational and reasonable answer, excluding God, to explain this fact. DNA is a code, science doesn't argue with this as well. It's a scientific fact, it's not reasonable at all to question it. It's funny. You want to go back, and to reason like in the middle-age, and speculate on multi-verses, which do not find any support with science, and at the same time, you argue with scientific facts, which are well established, and no scientific issue anymore.... 

It's hard to struggle against the obvious. Huh, what are you not trying to cancel the God-hypotheses away.... let me tell you. You won't be able to do it with reasonable answers. It's simply NOT reasonable to think in face of the scientific discoveries, God doesn't exist. The odd's are too big. Chance won't do it. 

Why do you not work first with your wishes, and think about, what makes you wish God not to exist ? This is your first issue. Let me tell you : I am a christian already for 25 years. And i experienced wonders, which cannot be explained by rational and naturalistic means. And i have met inumerous people along the way, who relate same experiences. The God i know, is wonderful, and has given me great blessings. I would wish, people to know the true nature of God, then they would not try to run from him at any cost, but quit the oposite : they would think, " why the heck did i not render myself earlier to God ? " God is love, and i experience his love every day. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. Wikipedia is not a source. It's a place to go to get sources.

1b. Being "compared to" a code does not mean it is a code anymore than someone being called strong as an ox is being called an ox.

2. Anthony Flew is currently a senile man who had the misfortune of having a book written about him by a fraudster. Even at that, he only became a deist. Why do Christians claim him as a victory? Do you really need to support what you believe is ultimate truth with lies?

That's the problem trying to get someone to understand the fundamental problems with their understandings but won't because they cannot or will not change their misunderstanding, compared to and is are 2 different things, improbable and impossible are 2 different things. Bringing about an illogical concept of god and saying it is, such as god does not need a creator but everything else does, well is illogical, but angelo refuses to admit such a problem. To say nothing can occur naturally that all things need a creator (even though earth, and everything in the universe has been shown to form naturally) and that god is the exception to that rule is illogical. But in his mind it's not, and a person that can make exceptions to the rules so that his world view fits his mind cannot fathom an existance without such said deity. I cannot accept illogical deities, god is one of them, and until a probable and logical explanation to god comes to, there is no reason to be believe in such deity.

We can give you all the answers you will just simply ignore them and state over and over again that fine tune is due to god and that is the only possibility, we can give you all the other possibilities that make far better choices than an illogical god but you will refuse to acknowledge them as you have throughout the entire conversation because in the end they eliminate the possibility for your god.

You repeat the same arguments, which i have already rejected. Irrational, and not logic, is to believe, that something can pop up from nothing. This is your standpoint, and it simply makes no sense. Its plain wrong, logically speaking. You try also to invalidate the Fine-tuning argument with questioning the fine-tuning constants. Science doesn't do that. Science admits these fine-tune constants. They are there, and they are correct. The universe is fine-tuned, and you have no rational and reasonable answer, excluding God, to explain this fact. DNA is a code, science doesn't argue with this as well. It's a scientific fact, it's not reasonable at all to question it. It's funny. You want to go back, and to reason like in the middle-age, and speculate on multi-verses, which do not find any support with science, and at the same time, you argue with scientific facts, which are well established, and no scientific issue anymore.... 

It's hard to struggle against the obvious. Huh, what are you not trying to cancel the God-hypotheses away.... let me tell you. You won't be able to do it with reasonable answers. It's simply NOT reasonable to think in face of the scientific discoveries, God doesn't exist. The odd's are too big. Chance won't do it. 

Why do you not work first with your wishes, and think about, what makes you wish God not to exist ? This is your first issue. Let me tell you : I am a christian already for 25 years. And i experienced wonders, which cannot be explained by rational and naturalistic means. And i have met inumerous people along the way, who relate same experiences. The God i know, is wonderful, and has given me great blessings. I would wish, people to know the true nature of God, then they would not try to run from him at any cost, but quit the oposite : they would think, " why the heck did i not render myself earlier to God ? " God is love, and i experience his love every day. 

Rejected, yes. Refuted, no. There is a difference.

And you still haven't answered why this divinely fine-tuned universe is trying to kill us.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:You

angelobrazil wrote:

You repeat the same arguments, which i have already rejected. Irrational, and not logic, is to believe, that something can pop up from nothing. This is your standpoint, and it simply makes no sense. Its plain wrong, logically speaking. You try also to invalidate the Fine-tuning argument with questioning the fine-tuning constants. Science doesn't do that. Science admits these fine-tune constants. They are there, and they are correct. The universe is fine-tuned, and you have no rational and reasonable answer, excluding God, to explain this fact. DNA is a code, science doesn't argue with this as well. It's a scientific fact, it's not reasonable at all to question it. It's funny. You want to go back, and to reason like in the middle-age, and speculate on multi-verses, which do not find any support with science, and at the same time, you argue with scientific facts, which are well established, and no scientific issue anymore.... 

It's hard to struggle against the obvious. Huh, what are you not trying to cancel the God-hypotheses away.... let me tell you. You won't be able to do it with reasonable answers. It's simply NOT reasonable to think in face of the scientific discoveries, God doesn't exist. The odd's are too big. Chance won't do it. 

Why do you not work first with your wishes, and think about, what makes you wish God not to exist ? This is your first issue. Let me tell you : I am a christian already for 25 years. And i experienced wonders, which cannot be explained by rational and naturalistic means. And i have met inumerous people along the way, who relate same experiences. The God i know, is wonderful, and has given me great blessings. I would wish, people to know the true nature of God, then they would not try to run from him at any cost, but quit the oposite : they would think, " why the heck did i not render myself earlier to God ? " God is love, and i experience his love every day. 

Great you can reject all my arguments, you haven't refuted them, when have I EVER stated that I believe that something popped from nothing? Sorry but that yours stance, there was nothing, god created everything. Sorry but I have never stated that I believe everything came from nothing. I am neither for god or against god, I am for a rational/logical explanation, your explanation is neither logical or rational regarding god, you don't even give any evidence for god.

Next is god a force or is god love? You keep changing  your god, god either has attributes we can study and identify or god is beyond our comprehension as you have stated before, which now is a contradiction, you either know god and able to give evidence or god is beyond our knowledge which means you cannot give attributes to something beyond our knowledge.

[edit]

Why do you wish for your god to exist, why do you eliminate all the other gods and state that it is only your god as a possibility? If there is a god it could be a mayan god, the hindu god brahma, it could be any number or gods or it could be something we have not fathomed yet, or it could be a deist type god that just set things in motion and doesn't give a crap about us. However until a rational, logical god can be explained that doesn't have to violate it's own rules for existence or be a contradiction of itself (it can create itself out nothing), why not accept the possibility there is not god, why do you wish for a god to exist? Why do you adhere to illogical beliefs?


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: your

latincanuck wrote:

 your explanation is neither logical or rational regarding god, you don't even give any evidence for god.

 

You continue to make the same assertion, despite the wealth of information i have shared already with you. Simply ignore it, and continue to say there is no evidence for god, makes any further discussion senseless. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 your explanation is neither logical or rational regarding god, you don't even give any evidence for god.

 

You continue to make the same assertion, despite the wealth of information i have shared already with you. Simply ignore it, and continue to say there is no evidence for god, makes any further discussion senseless. 

But your wealth of information has been refuted, given other possibilities, which you reject, not refute, which again is a huge difference. At least much of science refutes your statements regarding god. Specifically the biblical god, and your own statements regarding god are refuted on the grounds that they are irrational and illogical. If nothing can create itself god is not the exception, that's call special pleading.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:You

angelobrazil wrote:
You continue to make the same assertion, despite the wealth of information i have shared already with you. Simply ignore it, and continue to say there is no evidence for god, makes any further discussion senseless. 

Is that not what I said about what you were doing--making the same assertions over and over while not deailing with the questions I was asking?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:The

Sinphanius wrote:

The improbability of the universe being configured to support human life is utterly meaningless unless you can prove there was some need or desire or purpose for humanity being here.

No. I do not have to provide this prove. Meaning and purpose of life is a matter of religion, and does not rely on scientific inquiry, and is not correlated to the fact, that the universe is finely tuned to support life.

 

Sinphanius wrote:

You cannot fire an arrow into a wall, paint a bullseye around it, and then claim to be a marksman.

You are a puddle contemplating the fit of his hole, ignoring the possibility that you are fitted to the universe, not the other way around.

 

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html

The epistemic-probability is far too low for the universe to have arisen by random chance. The evidence (observation of extremely-low epistemic-probability) points to an Intelligent Designer (God) having designed, created and fine-tuned the universe.

 

Have you ever wondered…

  • Where did the Big Bang come from?
  • Where did the fine-tuning of our Universe come from?
  • Where did First Life come from?
  • Where did Irreducibly Complex Molecular-Biological Structures come from?
  • Where did the extent of the Rationality of Humans come from ?
  • Where did the moral law come from?