Justify how you can think the universe and reality in it's entirety can be solely the 'product of evolution', in technical detail with documented scientific arguments and quotes from a wide range of respected scientists that support it. Then I will answer.
the key is to use your reading - i used "life" so only talking about life here
Yeah, but I'm not just talking about life, I'm talking about the entire universe and the structure of reality, time and space and the mysteries thereof, ect.
the evidence is not convincing, many scientists is an exaggeration, because most scientist dont support ID
Again, it has nothing to do with "ID".
Quote from: cobra;784199
I feel im talking to a wall, and a stupid wall at that, NO i dont think life can be derived from randomness - the processes are not random - can you please go back to school, read book on the subject and come back when you can understand the basics
So you attribute everything in existence to the process of evolution?
There doesn't have to be one if you choose to conveniently ignore the question. The thing is though, the efficient structure of nature and the universe demands an explanation and cannot be attributed to evolution alone or mere randomness.
Quote from: Scunner;784188
Why not?
Because it just plain doesn't make sense, that's why not. It's the most irrational belief of all if you really think about it and the majority of scientists I have been quoting in the last page or two, would most likely agree with me.
It is reconised that there are many constants in the universe, that if they were slightly different, the universe wouldn't be here - the trouble is the step you take saying therefore god
Where did I say that? I have said no such thing. What I have done is quoted many scientists who support the fact that it implies the possibility. Indeed the evidence has been strong enough to change their minds from atheism, and some of them even taking the leap of faith from science to religion. My point was, if the evidence is so convincing to them it makes the atheists constant claims that people who believe are irrational a whole lot less credible.
Quote from: cobra;784176
his book explains why the analogy is wrong - read and understand it, might help with the problem you have - you know, every one thinking you're a moron
a) I didn't make the analogy.
b) I don't read books by Richard Dawkins. His books are tailored specifically for atheists, I'm not an atheist.
c) What does evolution have to do with a jumbo jet? A jumbo jet is something designed and created by men, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Quote from: cobra;784176
everything i have encountered so far in life can be explained in naturalist terms - that includes years of scientific study and in depth discussions with people who have studied different disciplines of science - no need for the super natural
Of course everything in the universe can be described in naturalistic terms because everying in the universe is a natural process, but what about explaining why nature works so efficiently, the logical structure of nature and so forth? What explanation do you have for that? You honestly believe intelligence, information, complex lifeforms, precise physical laws ect. can be derived from nothing but randomness and a series of coincidental chance happenings?
You ridicule Richard Dawkins, for his stupid 'aliens may possibly have made it all' statement. when thats the exact thing you're proposing. that something intelligent and not human created everything, and finely tuned it.
I'm not proposing anything. And definately not anything about extraterrestrial beings.
Quote from: Ngati_Grim;784138
And turkish: it isn't 'widely-accepted' in the scientific community. It is accepted by a few (numerically speaking) who are on the fringes.
That really isn't true, sorry.
Quote from: Ngati_Grim;784138
If it was widely accepted, there would be peer-reviewed articles about it in scientific journals, rather than op-ed shadowmonsters in cranky websites/journals...think about it...no, really think about it...do some proper research about it and then get back to us....
You can find plenty of information about it and scientific reviews of the argument - Stephen Hawking talks about it in his book "A Brief History of Time". Good book, you should check it out. I'm not sure why it is not mentioned in more scientific journals as you claim, but maybe you are just reading the wrong scientific journals. I don't know, I don't read scientific journals.
Quote from: Ngati_Grim;784138
by the way, thanks for posting your sources (at least some of them)...it's a start...though those sources are not much use for scientific enquiry...a theologian was one author
What kind of scientific enquiry are you hoping for? I would have thought most of what I have posted thus far is pretty self explanatory.
I'll explain it more simply - enjoy your second red square of many you offensively stupid child born of the love between a brother and sister.
I think I hit a nerve. Actually, nothing I have posted has anything to do with creationism sorry. So try again Captain Assmaster.
It seems when you are incapable of replying with an intelligent argument, it's better to resort to overreacting, namecalling and giving neg rep. It's hilarious how seriously you people take your little squares.
I'm curious. If they is such insurmountable and compelling 'evidence', why is it not widely accepted in the greater scientific community?
It is widely accepted in the greater scientific community. It's the whole reason the Anthropic Principle was stated in the first place.
Quote from: cobra;783971
please read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins - it shows how retarded the jet/tornado thing is, evolution is not random
No, what's really retarded, is an evolutionary biologist trying to explain how a complex mechanical structure like a jumbo jet could be explained by the process of biological evolution :chuckle:
Funnily enough, your buddy Richard Dawkins believes the universe may have been created by intelligent alien beings. I shit you not, I would find quotes if I could be bothered but he's not worth the effort. Of course he makes no attempt to explain what created the alien's universe or where that came from.
Quote from: cobra;783971
none of that is evidence for ID, and as explained many times. can be explained in natural terms, doesn't need to be supernatural
I didn't say it was evidence for ID, it is evidence that supports the fine-tuning argument, I thought I made that rather clear.
I think you've gotten yourself confused with the whole Intelligent Design thing - all the many scientists and physicists I have been quoting that mention intelligence and design... they have nothing to do with the Intelligent Design movement, absolutely nothing at all. The whole evolution vs. Intelligent Design thing going on in the United States is a load of rubbish, it's liberalism vs. republican bullshit. You need to get past that, because this is New Zealand not America.
You seem to be very sure that EVERYTHING can be explained by completely naturalistic terms. What makes you so sure, and how did you come to this conclusion? How do you personally think everything can be explained naturalistically? 'We don't know yet' is fine, but if you had to make an educated guess, what would it be? I would love to hear it.
Here's an interesting philosophical question that philosophers have been pondering for a long time. "Why is there something instead of nothing?"... Why is there anything rather than nothing? Have a think about that for a while. Don't just think about it for a minute or two and then write some crap about 'because if there wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe it', really think about that for a while.
Quote from: KiLL3r;783992
seriously thou if your gonna tell us there evidence to support your beliefs then find it yourself dont tell us to research it ourselves, its not upto us to provide evidence for your ridiculous beliefs
Oh wow. Just wow. So you dismiss ALL of the scientists that recognize the design, harmony and beauty in the universe as 'creationists with ridiculous beliefs'? Unbelievable.... Would you care to justify how your beliefs are more rational? Apparently you are more versed in scientific knowledge than the people I have been quoting so I would love to hear you explain exactly why you think their beliefs are ridiculous, and furthermore your reasoning for dismissing scientific evidence as 'creationist propoganda' when clearly, if you had bothered to read any of it, it is not. Of course, I know you won't try to justify it, because you are just looking for an excuse to slander me.
Oh, and I understand the majority of what was posted.
As I said, the evidence and information is out there if you are willing to seek it. How you interpet that evidence is up to you. You would most likely have to be a physicist of some kind to fully understand most of it though.
Spoiler :
Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 1037, or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome gravitational forces that galaxies, stars, and planets never would have formed.
The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form. Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
As it turns out, the Sun's color is just right. Light from the Sun is readily absorbed by chlorophyll, so initiating the photosynthetic process. On the other hand, the Sun's color is related to its temperature: Things heated moderately glow a dull red, but if heated yet more glow a brillant yellow. Thus the matching under consideration is between the temperature of the Sun on the one hand and the molecular structure of chlorophyll on the other. Without that matching, life could not exist upon the Earth.
Nor could life exist anywhere else. It is not a matter of seeking out the correct niche--some star of the right temperature. As emphasized above, only stars made of hydrogen are suitable seats for life, and it turns out that all such stars have roughly similar colors. From the coolest to the hottest, the variation is not that great. Thus starlight impinging upon all planets, wherever they may be in the universe, but a roughly similar color. Either all stars provide good niches or more of them do.
Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.
Were gravity ten times less strong, it would be doubtful whether stars and planets could form. And any appreciable weakening could mean that "all stars would be chemically homogeneous due to convective mixing and one would not get the onion-skin shell structure which characterizes pre-supernova models" hence, perhaps, no supernovae scattering heavy elements.
A remarkable feature of the universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be to frequent as to render the universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near-misses would detach planets from orbit about their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero.
As things are, clouds the right size to form stable stars are just able to cool fast enough to avoid fragmentation. Tinkering with gravity could destroy this happy phenomenon.
If the protogalaxies formed by fragmentation of larger clouds then, J. Silk has argued, this required gravity's strength to be interestingly close to its actual value.
Violent events at the galactic core presumably exclude life from many galaxies. In Cygnus A "the level of hard, ionizing radiation is hundreds of times more intense than on the surface of the earth." Strengthening gravity could make every galaxy this nasty.
Astrophysicist Brandon Carter has shown how the structure of stars is very delicately dependant on the exact ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic forces. Our Sun is a middling sized, yellow star, and the conditions that make life on Earth possible are closely dependent on the Sun's basic nature. If these forces were very slightly different in their relative strengths, however, all stars would be either blue giants or white dwarfs, depending on which way the balance was tilted. Stars like our Sun, which seem to be ideal at providing conditions suitable for the emergence of life, would not exist.
In 1954, Hoyle realized that the only way to make carbon inside stars is if there is a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12. The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change; the kinetic energy that each nucleus has depends on the temperature inside a star, which Hoyle could calculate. Using that temperature calculation, Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat sketpical nuclear physics colleagues until they carried out experiements to test his predictions. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 per cent above the calculated energy. This is so close that the kinetic energies of the colliding nuclei can readily supply the excess. This resonance greatly increases the chances of a helium-4 and a beryllium-8 nucleus sticking together, and ensures that enough alpha particles can be fused into carbon nuclei inside stars to account for our existence. "The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful production cannot be overemphasized. Suppose, for example, that the energy levels in carbon had turned out to be just 4 percent lower than the combined energy of helium-4 and beryllium-8. There is no way that kinetic energy could SUBTRACT rather than add the difference, so the trick simply would not have worked. This is made clear when we look at the next putative step in steller nucleosynthesis, the production of oxygen-16 from a combination of carbon-12 and helium-4. When a carbon-12 and a helium-4 molecule meet, they would fuse into oxygen if there was an appropriate resonance. But the nearest oxygen-16 resonance has one percent LESS energy than helium-4 plus carbon-12. But that one percent is all it takes to ensure that this time resonance does not occur. Sure, oxygen-15 is manufactured in stars, but only in small quantities (at least, at this early stage of a star's life) compared with carbon. If that oxygen energy level were one percent lower, then virtually all the carbon made inside stars would be processed into oxygen and then (much of it) into heavier elements still. Carbon-based life-forms like ourselves would not exist. "Most anthropic insights are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, 'Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it.' But Hoyle's prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific prediction, tested and confirmed by SUBSEQUENT experiments. Hoyle said, in effect, 'since we exist, then carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV.' THEN the experiments were carried out and the energy level was measured. As far as we know, this is the only genuine anthropic principle prediction; all the rest are 'predictions' that MIGHT have been made in advance of the observatios, if anyone had had the genius to make them, but that were never in fact made that way.
These apparent 'coincidences' and many more like them, have convinced some scientists that the structure of the Universe we perceive is remarkably sensitive to even the most minute changes in the fundamental parameters of nature. It is as though the elaborate structure of the cosmos was the result of highly delicate fine-tuning. In particular, the existence of life, and hence intelligent observers, is especially sensitive to the high-precision 'adjustment' of our physical circumstances.
Also, Ngati, I hope you noticed that the majority of them are not specifically supporting either intelligent design, or fine-tuning.
Most of them are probably agnostic, yeah. Most scientists are. While they may not be specifically supporting the specifics of the fine-tuning argument they are not rejecting it. That would be rejecting scientific evidence.
I'm not a creationist either, a creationist is someone that believes the Bible is the literal explanation of how the Earth and life was created. My views differ somewhat to that of the Bible. Sorry but it's not propoganda, it is relative to the thread and I thought most of you would find it interesting to hear the opinions of respected scientists. I guess not. I will drop this particular argument now anyway, it has pretty much been exhausted for the time being and I am interested in discussing other topics.
I will admit that I don't know for certain the majority accept the fine-tuning argument, but it's most likely that the only ones who outright reject it are atheist scientists since they are the only ones who have an agenda to discredit it, and they are also a minority in the scientific community.
Quote
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." - Albert Einstein
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Super-ficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. (Richard Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, April 15,1982)
The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up! (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, 1986, preface)
Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis…there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal. (Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, p 387, emp. in original)
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate… It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God. (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, J.M. Dent, London, 1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Would you like more? I'll leave it at that anyway, I think I have made my point and I'm a bit bored with this particular topic, but I still find it astounding that some people can outright reject the obviousness that this universe cannot exist due to sheer chance or coincidence.
Even the planets 'wander' on their orbit by more than a fraction of a percent.. How does this reconcile with the notion that you posted above?
Not sure what you mean? Y'know, I'm not going to claim that I think the universe and nature is perfectly tuned for life or anything like that, because with natural disasters and diseases that is obviously just not true, the universe is not a perfect place - but even that is not enough to make me not believe there must be something going on behind it all rather than just blind chance. And the evidence seems to be extremely compelling to the majority of scientists, so if it's good enough for them then it is good enough for me.
What you don't seem to understand is that your entire premise is wrong.
Tell that to the many scientists that agree with the fine-tuning argument.
Quote from: Arnifix;783477
You keep going on about what a coincidence it is that the universe exists and that we are here to witness it. It simply isn't. If the universe didn't exist as it currently does we wouldn't be here, something else would.
Um, no. This is a failure to understand the fine tuning argument on your behalf. If any of the physical constants of nature were even SLIGHTLY different by a fraction of a percent, NOTHING would be here, there would be no planets, no solar systems, no complexity, no evolution, no life. There are just far too many coincidences for it all to have happened by chance. If you honestly believe the origin of the universe happened by sheer chance alone, you are deluding yourself beyond recognition.
The fine-tuning argument is accepted by the majority of scientists worldwide, it is not a proponent of Intelligent Design, it is a scientific principle.
Quote from: Arnifix;783477
An argument frequently used by ID thickos is the idea that if the universe is random, then why couldn't a tornado in a junkyard put together a jumbo jet. And the answer that is given every single time this is trotted out is that it would inevitably occur if the junkyard was the size of the universe and several billion years passed.
You honestly believe a tornado could form a complex structure as a jumbo jet? How exactly do you come to this conclusion?
Quote from: Arnifix;783477
Sidenote: Getting all of your arguments from Wikipedia's list of ID "theories" is a great way to fail. Keep it up, the laughter will only get louder.
I'm not getting anything from Wiki sorry, I already have a decent understanding of the fine-tuning principle and the evidence that supports it, I do not need to refer to Wikipedia at all. Your childish arrogance is blinding your judgement and causing you to make ridiculous statements with the intent of trying to make me look silly when really you're the only one that looks silly here at the moment.
Even if such processes that lead to the structure and perception of design that we witness in the universe are not completely random, it is very difficult to make the assumption that it could arise from a series of highly unlikely "coincidences". Randomness or not, evolution can not solely explain (the existence of) or the finely-tuned constants that govern everything in the universe.
Yeah.... I'm kinda busy working today, so I can't respond to your every single reply at your personal whim, I was planning on responding later tonight when I have some free time.
Quote from: dirtyape;783223
You work on proving god exists, and we'll work on proving multiple-universes exist. I'll give you a race - GO!
meh, no thanks. I don't want to get too hooked into this debate, these kind of arguments tend to get messy. I neither could nor have any desire to convince you that the universe was quite possibly created for some purpose. That's something only you can come to on your own terms, all the evidence and information is out there if you choose not to dismiss it due to your own predispositions.
Quote from: dirtyape;783411
And the most interesting part is that I do not believe in a multiverse. And neither do physicists. We believe that there is a series of mathematical masturbations that explain how such a multiverse could work (ref: M-Theory), but this is hardly proven to be real. Potentially real, mathematics is after all the language of the universe. So it has some credit.
Have you asked yourself why you are so determined to prove the multiverse theory? Judging by your posts it sounds like you have some particular agenda or motivation to try and prove such a theory, despite the theory being outside any kind of real scientific enquiry which you completely rely upon.
I have no problem with the multiverse theory really, if that happened to be the process of how this universe was created, then so be it. You still can't tell me that ordered structure, intelligence and information can arise from a series of seemingly random and completely coincidental processes which you seem to be postulating.
Quote from: dirtyape;783411
Now you on the other hand seem to think that this "God" thing is very real.
Where did I say that?
Quote from: dirtyape;783411
despite only having cloudy logic
I lol'd.
Quote from: dirtyape;783411
quotes taken out of context
Which quotes are you talking about?
Quote from: dirtyape;783411
and a mountain of speculation.
Speculation based on compelling evidence? What's wrong with that? You think I should stop thinking about and seriously considering ideas because science hasn't proven them beyond a doubt? No thanks. Assuming it's existence; I don't think "God" could possibly be a physical being like us, therefore I do not need physical, emperical scientific evidence of it's existence like you do nor do I think God could even be proven solely by the scientific method, I need only consider what evidence is available of the logical order and structure of the universe aswell as numerous other aspects to seriously consider the idea of God.
The very foundation of philosophy is based upon speculation.
Quote from: dirtyape;783411
Now, isn't that odd?
No. And what is the neg rep for? Grow up (whoever that is, if it's not you)
Where did you get the idea that other universes even exist? There are no other universes as far as mainstream science is currently concerned.
Quote from: brucewillis2;783060
Nice big read there turkish, but so what.
So what? Well, I guess it depends on how you interpet the evidence. Perhaps you won't be suprised by anything unless it's farting out magical rainbow-colored unicorns? I dunno...
Quote from: brucewillis2;783060
It's like gravity, back in the days we didn't understand it so guys like those professors would say "it makes no sense so some invisible hand must be pushing things back down"
Actually, Isaac Newton understood the laws of gravity very well, even if he didn't fully understand the precise mechanics that made them work so efficiently. He did not say "an invisible hand" must be controlling gravity, however he did say:
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.
Quote from: nick247;783146
thats a good post, very interesting, and good use of logic.
My only problem is with these scientists = "According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence" .I reckon for them to claim that it must have been created is a big call.
I agree it's a bold claim to make, but apparently the evidence is that convincing. I wouldn't necessarily accept it as 100% conclusive evidence that the universe was designed and created by divine intelligence, but it's definetely compelling and reaffirms some of my own personal beliefs.
O.k...that was an interesting read. However, I would like to see the same comments in a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal as opposed to a selection of Faith-based websites that generally prey on scientific illiteracy in the wider community. d :heheh:)
I meant to include a source, just forgot. That 2001 website doesn't appear to be a 'faith-based' site though, but thanks for the link - I love reading interpretations of 2001 a Space Odyssey.
I imagine most scientists wouldn't get away with publishing statements about design and intelligence in peer-reviewed scientific journals - the atheist scientists might kick up a fuss and start accusing them of being Intelligent Design advocates which is probably why they tend to make such statements publically or in their own personal literature. Keeping their work and beliefs seperate 'n all that.
Quote from: dirtyape;783164
No. This concept is obsolete. Recent studies show that about 1/4 of potential universes would support stars.
So you are willing to completely reject the notion of God due to there being no physical evidence, yet willing to accept the existence of other universes despite there not being a single bit of physical evidence for seperate universes either?
I was actually aware of that article, having had this discussion with a guy at another forum whom quoted the same article, but - I have two problems with the 'multiverse' argument, which seemingly appeared from the realm of science-fiction not long after the Anthropic Principle was stated..
1) As Stephen Hawking said in his book and quoted in my post, assuming there are other seperate universes that exist outside our own; the physical constants and laws of nature would be so out of whack that they would not allow for intelligent or complex life of any kind. Stars maybe, but that's just stars... As far as I'm concerned, this is the only universe we know and will ever know, it's the only universe that supports life, it's the only universe that we should care about. Any 'other' universe that may or may not exist is pretty irrelevant, furthermore it makes very little sense and the theory is completely outside the realm of any real scientific enquiry. It is clear to me from all that I see and understand, our ability to understand the complex and ordered universe, and all the many fields of scientific evidence, that the universe exhibits evidence of some underlying intelligence. I am not sure why you and others have such a difficult time grasping it.
2) Even if the multiverse theory were true, whatever the mechanism is that is creating a multitude of universes would be so complex it would have to have been designed. It's falling back into the problem of infinite regress.
When it comes to the infinite, I honestly believe there are just some things we just aren't meant to know:
Quote
Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
I doubt you will find a physicist claiming that the universe is not predictable and repeatable.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event. In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."
According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.
When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
Adds Dr. David D. Deutch:
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department.
Quote from: Dr_Woohoo;781717
Maybe I'm weird but I have much less trouble comprehending the universe and its existence than I do understanding women.
Ah OK. I get you. My approach is completely different. Given the laws the universe operates under, which we have been observing, measuring and deducing since we first became self aware, the universe is not only explicable but inevitable.
That is merely opinion though to be honest, and a number of scientists, particulary physicists, would probably disagree with you on that.
Quote
There is nothing unlikely, unbelievable or bizarre about the universe at all. Everything we have managed to observe makes complete sense, and it is precisely because all the observations we make are explicable, comprehensible and repeatable, that I find the god concept so ridiculous. He just doesn't fit the universe we live in.
Aswell that...
I guess it comes down to different viewpoints, or which scientists you choose to listen to or ignore since there is no definitive answer at this point in time. (possibly never, for that matter...)
I'm not sure what your last statement means. The universe does exist. Belief is irrelevant.
I think what I mean is, the universe and nature is just so unbelievable, so mind boggling, in some ways it almost takes a further stretch of imagination to think/believe it could have some completely naturalistic, materialistic, scientific cause as opposed to some kind of supernatural cause. In my opinion.
I was sort of borrowing the idea from this quote:
Quote
If we were to judge nature by common sense or likelihood, we wouldn't believe the world existed. --Annie Dillard
Well, I guess it is believable because the universe does exist, but you know what I mean... it's pretty crazy to think about how all it got here, how it is now and how everythings works ect.
which is probably why they tend to make such statements publically or in their own personal literature. Keeping their work and beliefs seperate 'n all that.
