INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

So? My backyard is lacking in objects to fill it. So what??

What do you mean, so? If you’re going to say the UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for life, then you’d better be able to show that there is an abundance of life in this UNIVERSE you say is fine-tuned to contain it. Pointing out that there’s life on some parts of the earth doesn’t do that. What is it that you’re not getting here?

Or put another way: If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life so rare?

Demonstrate the existence? You exist, and I exist, right?

Yeah, we live on EARTH. Try living on Mars and see what happens to you.

And the Penrose number was calculated considering everything that is within the observable universe. So everything that is beyond planet earth is irrelevant if the low probability remains the same despite it.

There’s a major contradiction in your argument. How can you say that he made his calculations considering everything that is within the observable universe while at the same time dismissing the entire universe and focusing only on the life present on earth? That makes no sense. Everything beyond planet earth is NOT irrelevant when we’re talking about the UNIVERSE.

And again, Penrose couldn’t possibly have taken into account the number of possible other universes that could have formed with different physical properties that could still lead to some form of life because nobody knows what that probability would be. And again, we have no other universe to compare this one to.

The low entropy conditions must have been an initial condition of the big bang itself. The precision that is needed is HIGHLY less probable than the contrary, so the only way these cosmological constants wouldn’t exist would be if the designer involved wouldn’t have allowed it to be the way it is.

Apparently the total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was almost zero but would have had more order than the universe we now observe because it was much more compact than it is now. The entropy of a closed system can never decrease but some parts can decrease at the expense of other parts increasing in entropy. Is that what you’re referring to? I’m not really sure what you’re saying here and why entropy has made its way into the conversation. What precision is needed?

If you assume a designer is involved, that you can assume basically anything you want. Magic is a good explanation for just about anything, I suppose, even though it really tells us nothing. I’m quite happy science doesn’t work that way.

I don’t need to look any further than the life on THIS earth. The Penrose calculation applies to this life and this earth.

Um, okay so you’re telling me that calculations about the UNIVERSE are only applicable to EARTH? Are you serious? How is the UNIVERSE irrelevant when we’re talking about the UNIVERSE?

So are you denying the fact that in order for life to be permitted, certain conditions has to be met?

I’m saying that in order for the life we are currently aware of to exist, certain conditions might need to be met, but that doesn’t account for other types of life that could occur under different conditions. We have no idea what those could be, but we can’t really rule anything out. . I.e., These probabilities only apply to life as we know it and your claim assumes that life in its present form is a given, which we definitely don’t know.

No scientist disagrees with the fact that our universe had to meet certain specified conditions in order for life to be permissible, and by “specified”, I mean VERY PRECISE. The disagreement comes in to play when theists like to call this “fine tuning” the act of Design (I.D). No one is denying that the universe is fine tuned, there is just a disagreement over the EXPLANATION as we ask why and how.

Scientists may agree that our universe has to meet certain specified conditions in order for LIFE AS WE KNOW IT to be permissible. That’s it. I would go further to say that most scientists would say that the evidence indicates that the life that exists on earth is fine-tuned to the universe which we would expect given what we know about evolution. Besides, your fine-tuning argument isn’t really an explanation of anything anyway, because our existence is the result of this supposed fine-tuning, not the cause.

Consider the old puddle example:

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’” – Douglas Adams

The point being that from the puddle’s perspective, the hole it sits within was designed perfectly to contain it and therefore must have been made in order specifically for that puddle to be able to fit neatly within it. It’s so obvious to us in this case that the puddle doesn’t fit into the hole because the hole was designed for it, rather the water the puddle is composed of adapts itself nicely to fit within the hole. In the same way, we imagine that the universe was designed with us specifically in mind, when in actuality, we have adapted to the universe. It appears the other way around because we’re looking at it from our own perspective.

Lots of people deny that the universe is fine-tuned for life. And you aren’t doing much to convince anyone that it is. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, then why is life within it so rare?? Do you really think this gigantic universe was created just for us, so that we could exist on a miniscule planet in this tiny solar system that makes up but a tiny fraction available space?


Cont'd ..

 

[SkepticThinker]

I really don’t see the relevance.

You don’t see how other possibilities are relevant? Of course they are.

I mean, if I am walking through a field on a dark night and I see in the distance a huge UO (unidentified object), which looks like a space shuttle, and I see a door and go inside, and when I get inside I see all of this what LOOKS like technological stuff, big computer screens with some kind of writing of what looks like highly complex mathematical formulas and jibberish that looks like writing but of a different language, why am I not to assume intelligent design? Keep in mind that in this scenario, I didn’t even see aliens, but I am STILL going to include intelligent design. Why? Because, it would defy common sense to conclude that this UO assembled itself with all of its fine and complex parts and engineering.

But we don’t infer design from complexity; we infer it from our experiences with designed things as compared to our experiences with naturally-occurring things. We recognize that language is designed because we know that humans designed it, we don’t see it occurring naturally, so if you saw language on the UFO you would rightly conclude that it was designed. Same goes for the mathematical formulas. You would also deduce that the craft itself was designed because a) we never see such things self-assembling in nature, b) it’s not an organic object or something that can reproduce, and c) we’ve seen similar things during our lifetimes that have all been designed by human beings. I doubt someone’s first thought upon encountering such a craft would be “Wow, look at all this specified complexity! This was surely designed by someone intelligent.” It would be something more like, That looks like a computer, I’ve seen those before. Those look like letters and numbers, I’ve seen those before. This looks like a steel-forged ship (or whatever), I’ve seen that before. I’ve never seen anything of these things popping up by natural means, so either humans or some other intelligent beings probably put this all together.”

Same goes for the old finding a painting in the woods example (or any of its derivatives). You don’t assume the painting was painted by an intelligent being because it contains some sort of specified complexity (whatever that means anyway). You deduce that it was painted because you’ve only ever seen other humans creating paintings. You’ve seen people painting, you know what tools are used to create paintings, etc.

I go where the science takes me.

Apparently not, because you don’t accept evolution and you dismiss the science that doesn’t conform to your religious views. That’s certainly your prerogative, if that’s what you want to do, but let’s not pretend that’s scientific.

Contrary to what some make think, Christianity is compatible with science. I can maintain my Christianity while following the latest scoop in science. Science confirms what Christianity has been saying all along, that the universe began to exist, and that it was designed by a “super-mind”, or a “super-engineer). So as a Christian, I can go where the science takes me, and right now science points to a finite universe and a cosmic design.

I wholeheartedly agree that most brands of Christianity are compatible with science (save for maybe fundamentalist creationism). But science doesn’t demonstrate that the universe was designed by a “super-mind.” And as to the universe having a beginning, it appears that it did in the sense that time began at the big bang but anything beyond that, we don’t really know right now. Quantum physics is still working that all out.

I am genetically linked to my parents, but that is not the same as saying I EVOLVED from my parents. Our genetic makeup can just as easily mean common designer.

What? You are not an exact clone of your parents, right? Your genetic makeup is a combination of your parent’s genes. We can trace the lineage of specific genes through generations and across species. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but scientists have managed to map the genomes of many animals and they can even pinpoint specific genes that have been turned on or off and even when and where they were turned on and off over the course of evolution of life on this planet. Evolution works with genetic variation, so I don’t see what it is you don’t understand here.

How does our genetic makeup point to a common designer? What is the explanation for it?

Second, since there is no scientific evidence that life came from non-life anyway, to assume evolution is putting the cart before the horse.

There is a lot of scientific evidence indicating that it is possible that life could have come from non-life. As I already pointed out.

We’re talking about abiogenesis here, not evolution. Evolution occurs whether or not life came from non-life.

Furthermore, we don’t just assume evolution. It is the best (and only) explanation that explains the diversity of life on earth, that fits all the available data and is well attested by mountains and mountains of evidence. It’s not just a random guess; it is probably the best supported scientific theory in existence. Evolution is a fact.

Demonstrable, verifiable? Testable?

Yep, yep and yep. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a scientific theory.

How can you demonstrate that every living creature share common ancestry with a creature of the past? How can you verify that a bat and a whale had the same great grandparents? This is adding your presupposition to the observation.

Here’s one way, no presupposition necessary:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/comparative-genomics-13239404

And second, as I just said, I am genetically linked to my parents through DNA, but does this mean that I evolved from my parents? No it doesn’t.

And as I just said, you are not a clone of your parents. If you were, you might have a case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am quite aware of this.

Then why do you keep conflating the two?

And anything that didn’t have to be here, but is here, can only get its explanation from something that preceded it. Nothing in the universe had to be here, so therefore, the universe owes its existence to something that transcends it.

Your assumptions about fine-tuning assume that we have to be here. You can’t seem to fathom the possibility that something else could be here in our place, or nothing.

Whoa, whoa … nothing in the universe has to be here so the universe must have been created by a being outside of it? How did you make the jump from the former to the latter?

First off, the BGV theorems holds true regarding any universe, even those that are postulated in string theories and pre-big bang models.

When did we start talking about the BVG theorem and what does that have to do with what we’re talking about?

What does any of this have to my asking you why you’re using life on EARTH to demonstrate that the UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for life?

Second, the absurdities that would result in a past eternal universe isn’t negated if you presuppose a naturalistic cause.

How about the absurdity of a super intelligent, timeless, spaceless being that supposedly exists without a cause that supposedly created the universe and everything in it? Or the absurdity of thinking that this creator created this huge, vast, space just so that we could exist on a teeny, tiny little planet, in a similarly tiny solar system that makes up but a miniscule fraction of the entirety of the universe? How does that fit into your specified complexity model?

I have no idea how the universe began or whether it’s eternal or whatever. I’ll wait until science has something definitive to say about it all.

Third, you would still have both the entropy problem and thermodynamics problem. All of these problems apply to OTHER UNIVERSES AS WELL. So you can postulate other universes, but you are only pushing the problem back a few steps further.

What entropy problem?

Actually our universe is a closed system. There is nothing outside it replenishing its energy and once the sun burns out the universe will suffer a “heat death”, and this is inevitable. Just like if you have hot coffee in a mug, if you let it sit there for 45 days, it will eventually get cold, trust me. Thermodynamics is one of the most understood things in science and it never fails.

Yes, I’m aware of this, I don’t think I suggested otherwise. I’m asking you why you think you can dismiss the entire universe and only focus on life here on earth when you’re talking about the fine-tuning of the UNIVERSE.

The universe could be a closed system, that’s something we don’t know for sure. We do know that earth isn’t a closed system though.

So let’s use an analogy. Let’s say you have at your disposal a THOUSAND tiny pieces of paper, and on each piece of paper, there is a different number, with all numbers of paper numbering 1-1000, so no number is used more than once.

So you put each piece of paper in a big hat…and you cover the hat, and shake the hat, so all of the numbers are randomly scattered inside. The goal is for you to, without looking inside, put your hand in the hat and pull a number, and for you to pull the numbers in NUMERICAL order, from 1-1000. Each time you pull a number that isn’t in numerical order, you have to put all the numbers back in the hat, shake it up, and start all over again.

How long do you think it will take you to pick every number in sequence order from 1-1000?

Do you see what is going on here? Each number you pick has the same probability of being picked, which is improbable enough, but it is even more improbable for you to pull all the numbers in that specified sequence/pattern.

If the universe started off with a big bang, there are only two options; either it would be life prohibiting, or it would be life permitting. It is more improbable for it to be life prohibiting, because that would require the same specified order that you would need to pick numbers 1-1000 in the analogy.

How’s that?

Nothing is orderly and organized about black holes, but if those black holes were producing computers and automobiles, then that would be a different story.

But they aren’t, are they?

Well, he completely destroyed three evolutionists at one time, which is a video that can be found on youtube. He has debated evolutionists numerous times and has challenged any evolutionist to a public debate. So far, he has whooped everyone that has accepted the challenge. I don’t agree with him on everything, but when it comes to debunking evolution, he is the man.

I’m sorry, but that’s a laughable claim. He’s really good at talking so fast you don’t have enough time to refute everything he says (I’m sure that’s his tactic) but winning a debate by talking faster than the other guy doesn’t amount to much of a win, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, imo. He doesn’t whoop people with facts, that’s for damn sure. That’s really hard to do when you don’t have any facts. If you don’t believe me, try jotting down some of the nonsense he spews and go look them up at their primary source. You’ll figure out what I’m talking about pretty quickly.

His refutations of evolution are laughable and inaccurate. I’m convinced he doesn’t even understand evolution. I even feel embarrassed for him sometimes.

 

[Agnostic75]

Would it help if I said difficulties or things that have not been explained. Let me clarify.

1. I believe that evolution has occurred.
2. I believe there are very good reasons to believe that evolution alone can never produce the reality we observe alone.

I do not think that is an objection to common descent specifically.

Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Do you agree, or disagree, with Behe, and over 99% of other experts who believe that all creatures on earth are biological relatives? Do you believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Do you accept intelligent design?

Do you believe that some life forms existed millions of years before humans did? If so, do you believe that God created those species instantly, or over millions of years with many gradual modifications that happened at various rates?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I believe there are very good reasons to believe that evolution alone can never produce the reality we observe alone.

If those simply are the same old bologna-sausage we've been hearing creationists puff about for years, then no, these are not "good" reasons to think this.

And regardless, this would only constitute a criticism of evolutionary theory- and it needn't be a fatal one (a theory as successful and well-corroborated as evolution would be more likely to be modified in the face of a shortcoming than thrown out altogether)- not an argument for creationism/ID; indeed, arguing along the lines of "evolution alone can never produce the reality we observe alone, therefore creationism" would be a textbook argument from ignorance.

 

[1robin]

Michael Behe says: Do you agree, or disagree, with Behe, and over 99% of other experts who believe that all creatures on earth are biological relatives? Do you believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Do you accept intelligent design?

I am neutral on what Behe has claimed. The only thing I am SURE is in it's favor is the opinion of intelligent scientists. I do not have enough knowledge to contend or agree totally with his claim.

Life its self I think only has a design component at its core but everything after that would be part design and part natural law and I think the ratio would fluctuate. I do not see where this is going. If you would state your conclusion it may make my responses less ambiguous.

Do you believe that some life forms existed millions of years before humans did?

Probably but I have no firm stance of what when or where.

If so, do you believe that God created those species instantly, or over millions of years with many gradual modifications that happened at various rates?

I will tell you this.

God is by far and pretty much the only reasonable solution concerning life's origin and its basic make up. 2.3 billion bits of data do not arrange themselves in the right order by chance over and over and over, but that is one it's least problems. Nature is full of information. No known source for information beyond intelligence is known. I work with a information specialist so I can get as complex as you wish. After that I am not sure what happened (and do not think anyone does to any meaningful extent until the Cambrian when all major body types exploded on the scene in a geological instant with little to know significant evolution. It's is personally a big blur until humans. I have no real objection to humans coming from other primates but many things cause me to pause. The almost infinite intelligence gap is one. There is no slow steady improvement. There (if true) are huge leaps in much shorter time frames that general evolutionary change rates.

Again to make this meaningful I need to know what your trying to prove.

 

[1robin]

If those simply are the same old bologna-sausage we've been hearing creationists puff about for years, then no, these are not "good" reasons to think this.

And regardless, this would only constitute a criticism of evolutionary theory- and it needn't be a fatal one (a theory as successful and well-corroborated as evolution would be more likely to be modified in the face of a shortcoming than thrown out altogether)- not an argument for creationism/ID; indeed, arguing along the lines of "evolution alone can never produce the reality we observe alone, therefore creationism" would be a textbook argument from ignorance.

These are my primary understandings of governing thought about evolution. I have made no hard and fast conclusion but it seems from my primary points the most reasonable conclusion is that both God and evolution are true.

1. It is almost impossible to believe a natural sequence of events produced life. Many secular scientists put the numbers at worse that 1 in 10^80 and they are being very generous. The most accepted cosmological model posits a single finite universe. That makes it fine tuned to a precision that is not every understandable much less explained by nature. IOW for life we need an improbable universe, an improbably fine tuned universe for structure, and ever more improbably tuned one for life, and even more improbably fine tuned one for our type of life. Then we need a few million other improbable things to have life appear and be sustained.

2. That is just to get what is needed for evolution. Evolution its self has a whole host of delicately balanced operations and conditions to work at all.

3. All major body types show up in the Cambrian almost in an instant without any significant development.

4. The preservation of things contrary to survival exist in spite of evolution.

5. The existence of distinct lines of demarcation like fertility or breeding capacity would not be what evolution should produce in the way it exists.

6. The encoding in nature of rationality, law, information, and constants that do not even have a theoretical natural sources not even selection bias. Things like the Fibonacci, FI, I'm in a hurry but there are many.

7. Irreducible complexity. A factual theory that only has uncertainty concerning specific application.

There are many such reliable fact reality has conveyed that strongly suggest that more than the natural is necessary. I could write a chapter on each of those and post many more.

That being said I also can easy see evidence that codes can be corrupted, and that animals bear much resemblance and appearance consistent with evolving.

The only objection I have is the claim evolution makes God even the slightest bit less likely or that it can do anything. As a veteran I heard the saying that he who defends everything actually defends nothing. A theory claimed to explain everything actually explains nothing. It is as useless as the paradoxical universal solvent that can not be put into storage containers.

I prefer to examine concepts but have waded through the monotonous detail of every claim I made above many times.

 

[Looncall]

These are my primary understandings of governing thought about evolution. I have made no hard and fast conclusion but it seems from my primary points the most reasonable conclusion is that both God and evolution are true.

1. It is almost impossible to believe a natural sequence of events produced life. Many secular scientists put the numbers at worse that 1 in 10^80 and they are being very generous. The most accepted cosmological model posits a single finite universe. That makes it fine tuned to a precision that is not every understandable much less explained by nature. IOW for life we need an improbable universe, an improbably fine tuned universe for structure, and ever more improbably tuned one for life, and even more improbably fine tuned one for our type of life. Then we need a few million other improbable things to have life appear and be sustained.

2. That is just to get what is needed for evolution. Evolution its self has a whole host of delicately balanced operations and conditions to work at all.

3. All major body types show up in the Cambrian almost in an instant without any significant development.

4. The preservation of things contrary to survival exist in spite of evolution.

5. The existence of distinct lines of demarcation like fertility or breeding capacity would not be what evolution should produce in the way it exists.

6. The encoding in nature of rationality, law, information, and constants that do not even have a theoretical natural sources not even selection bias. Things like the Fibonacci, FI, I'm in a hurry but there are many.

7. Irreducible complexity. A factual theory that only has uncertainty concerning specific application.

There are many such reliable fact reality has conveyed that strongly suggest that more than the natural is necessary. I could write a chapter on each of those and post many more.

That being said I also can easy see evidence that codes can be corrupted, and that animals bear much resemblance and appearance consistent with evolving.

The only objection I have is the claim evolution makes God even the slightest bit less likely or that it can do anything. As a veteran I heard the saying that he who defends everything actually defends nothing. A theory claimed to explain everything actually explains nothing. It is as useless as the paradoxical universal solvent that can not be put into storage containers.

I prefer to examine concepts but have waded through the monotonous detail of every claim I made above many times.

An almost classic Gish Gallop: many points made, all erroneous. Maybe we should frame this one and hang it on a wall.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What do you mean, so? If you’re going to say the UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for life, then you’d better be able to show that there is an abundance of life in this UNIVERSE you say is fine-tuned to contain it. Pointing out that there’s life on some parts of the earth doesn’t do that. What is it that you’re not getting here?

You keep talking about the lack of life elsewhere, when that is completely irrelevant. The Penrose equations are in regards to THIS universe, and even if there is life elsewhere then that life would also require fine tuning.

Instead of worrying about things that we have no evidence for as of yet, how about focusing on what we DO have evidence for, and that is that our universe is life permitting when the odds were astronomically against it, yet it beat those odds, and we are here. It is hard enough for you to offer an naturalistic explanation for our universe, yet you are so concerned about life elsewhere.

Or put another way: If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life so rare?

No one is saying that every single place in the universe is fine tuned for life. The argument is there shouldn’t be life ANYWHERE if you start off with a big bang unless the low entropy conditions needed for human life was an initial condition of the singularity (or otherwise). Planet earth and its inhabitants are in the best possible location when you consider the galaxy as a whole. We find ourselves in the best place for life to be even permissible, let alone created.

Yeah, we live on EARTH. Try living on Mars and see what happens to you.

The Penrose calculation applies regardless. It just doesn’t matter how much life there is in the universe or how much life there isn’t…what matters is the probability of THIS universe being life permitting at all, and those odds are so astronomical that it takes just as much faith to believe that those odds were overcame than it does to believe in any religious deity I know of.

There’s a major contradiction in your argument. How can you say that he made his calculations considering everything that is within the observable universe while at the same time dismissing the entire universe and focusing only on the life present on earth? That makes no sense. Everything beyond planet earth is NOT irrelevant when we’re talking about the UNIVERSE.

So you don’t see the irrelevance? Even if we can positively confirm that there is another universe out there besides our own, that just doesn’t help the situation because it isn’t as if this other universe will have any barren on the probability, at least in the way you might think it does. However the case may be, the odds were beat. No naturalistic explanation can be given as to how this universe can be not only fine tuned for human life, but to also actually have human life. Remember, these are two separate issues here, because it is one thing to have all the parts needed to build a car, but it is another thing to assemble all the parts together to make a car. So if cosmologists found another universe out there, how does that in any way affect Penrose’s calculations?

And again, Penrose couldn’t possibly have taken into account the number of possible other universes that could have formed with different physical properties that could still lead to some form of life because nobody knows what that probability would be. And again, we have no other universe to compare this one to.

It doesn’t matter!!! The calculations apply to OUR universe. If there are other universes out there, how would the calculation be affected? In fact, postulating other universes may make it even more improbable because the more you add, the higher the probability will be to make life permissible, when it is improbable enough with just the one universe that we know about!!!

Apparently the total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was almost zero but would have had more order than the universe we now observe because it was much more compact than it is now.

How do you get specified order from a chaotic event?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The entropy of a closed system can never decrease but some parts can decrease at the expense of other parts increasing in entropy. Is that what you’re referring to? I’m not really sure what you’re saying here and why entropy has made its way into the conversation. What precision is needed?

Entropy is the measurement of order/disorder, right? Low entropy means order, high entropy means disorder. You follow me? Now, if you start the universe off with a big bang, it can only mean high entropy, because there would be no order to it whatsoever. It was a random and chaotic event with no agenda, no goal, no sight, no mind, nothing. The singularity expanded and all of this energy just burst everywhere as the universe expanded. There is no order to this whatsoever.

Now according to Penrose and the values of the cosmological constants…the odds of our universe becoming life permitting at all from such a disordered event is so astronomical, that if the number (10[10] 123)….that is a 10 as the base, and a 10 as the exponent followed by 123 zeros…that number was written as a notation it would fill a large portion of the universe.

Now based on this low probability, the low entropy conditions must have been placed there from the very beginning. It had to start low, and remain low, because the values of the constants are so precise that if any one were off by just a small percentage, it would throw the whole thing off, and life would not be permissible at all. And keep in mind that there was only one shot…one try, and it had to be right the first time otherwise life would not be permissible.

If you negate the existence of Intelligent Design, I am at a loss at how you can think that those kinds of odds were beaten, but it makes PERFECT sense to me if you postulate an intelligent designer who engineered and orchestrated the project, just like any engineer or music composer does. It takes a special kind of precision, the kind of precision that mindless and blind processes would not give you.

If you assume a designer is involved, that you can assume basically anything you want. Magic is a good explanation for just about anything, I suppose, even though it really tells us nothing. I’m quite happy science doesn’t work that way.

You call my belief magic? Look at your belief; you believe that inanimate matter all of a sudden CAME TO LIFE. You believe that inanimate materials were once lifeless, but became ALIVE. Not only did it come to life, but it started thinking, started eating, and started having sex and everything else. How is your belief any more logical than mines?

Um, okay so you’re telling me that calculations about the UNIVERSE are only applicable to EARTH? Are you serious? How is the UNIVERSE irrelevant when we’re talking about the UNIVERSE?

The calculations are nothing more than the mathematical details of what it would take to meet the conditions that were needed for life to be permissible. In order for life to exist, certain conditions have to be met. I am sure for life to be permissible anywhere else in the universe, conditions would have to be met as well.

I’m saying that in order for the life we are currently aware of to exist, certain conditions might need to be met, but that doesn’t account for other types of life that could occur under different conditions. We have no idea what those could be, but we can’t really rule anything out. . I.e., These probabilities only apply to life as we know it and your claim assumes that life in its present form is a given, which we definitely don’t know.

That won’t work either because by “life” scientists mean that property of organisms to take in food, get energy from it, grow, adapt, reproduce, etc. Whatever forms that life may take the constants and quantities still have to be fine tuned. If there is no fine tuned then there wouldn’t even be chemistry, let alone planets where life might evolve.

Lots of people deny that the universe is fine-tuned for life. And you aren’t doing much to convince anyone that it is.

You can lead a horse to water…but you can’t make it drink…like the saying goes.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, then why is life within it so rare?? Do you really think this gigantic universe was created just for us, so that we could exist on a miniscule planet in this tiny solar system that makes up but a tiny fraction available space?
Cont'd ..

I believe in Jesus Christ and his Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit that guides us.

 

[1robin]

An almost classic Gish Gallop: many points made, all erroneous. Maybe we should frame this one and hang it on a wall.

I have no idea who Gish is but my points did not come from whoever it is. Nor do I see even a bad attempt to show they were wrong which is kind of the more important issue. It is not my business what you plaster your wall with. But if you are doing so with this type of information whether wrong or right there is a flaw in your slaw.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am neutral on what Behe has claimed.

I have no real objection to humans coming from other primates but many things cause me to pause. The almost infinite intelligence gap is one. There is no slow steady improvement. There (if true) are huge leaps in much shorter time frames that general evolutionary change rates.

Again to make this meaningful I need to know what you are trying to prove.

If you are neutral about common descent, why does it give you pause? It doesn't give pause to the majority of Christian biologists.

My interest is not in disproving theistic evolution, but in disproving the kind of intelligent design that Ken Miller discusses in his article at The Flagellum Unspun. Most experts agree with Miller's opinions about the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity.

If a God exists, he would not be limited by time regarding how he has used evolution.

If the Bible said that common descent is true, I doubt that you would be discussing it in this thread.

In an article at http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/theres-plenty-of-time-for-evolution/, well-known atheist biologist Jerry Coyne says that there has been sufficient time for evolution to occur. Consider the following from the article:

Here’s their complicated equation for the number of rounds of “guessing”, that is the number of rounds it takes to achieve adaptive evolution at every one of L genes:

The mean number of rounds that are necessary to guess all of the letters of an L letter word, the letters coming from an alphabet of K letters, is

[1]
with β(L) being the periodic function of log L that is given by Eq. 7 below. The function β(L) oscillates within a range which for K≥2, is never larger than .000002 about the first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 7.
​

Let’s put some biological numbers to this. Let’s assume that we have to change 20,000 genes to get from an ancestor to a descendant. (That’s a LOT of genes, since the whole human genome is only a tad bigger than this.) And let’s assume that at each gene only 1/40 of all gene variants are adaptive. (We’re assuming that if the population has as few as one “adaptive” variant, that one will sweep through the population. That’s not strictly correct since some of these will get lost by genetic drift and never contribute to evolution.) The 1/40 figure comes from assuming a population has a million births each generation, that there are 20,000 genes, that each generation of new births carries about 5 million new mutations in the genome—about 250 per gene—and that only one new mutation in 10,000 will be favored over the “resident gene type” (The mutation data are taken from humans, and assume that only a small percentage of new mutations arise in regions of the genome that actually do something.)

Some atheist biologists disagree with Coyne, and use other explanations to explain evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

An almost classic Gish Gallop: many points made, all erroneous. Maybe we should frame this one and hang it on a wall.

I was about to point that out, but you said it better than I ever could! :bow:

 

[Ouroboros]

An almost classic Gish Gallop: many points made, all erroneous. Maybe we should frame this one and hang it on a wall.

"Gish Gallop." LOL!

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what? What does domestication have to do with anything? A dog is a dog, whether domesticated or not. Due to the fact that I DON’T believe in evolution, I DON’T believe that dogs came from non-dogs. And I will even go a step further and tell you that I believe a wolf is a freakin DOG. A wolf is a dog. Plain as day. And I won’t allow a evolutionists with his/her presupposed theories to tell me otherwise.

Domestication has to do with the reason why wolves are ancestral to dogs! You think a wolf is a dog. Okay, go out into the wild and start petting a wolf and bring it home with you to fetch your newspaper for you. See what happens to you.

The difference between wild wolves and dogs has to do with behavioral and physical differences (such things have been bred into dogs by human beings via artificial selection which would never work if evolution were not a reality). They are not the same thing just because they both have fur and four legs.

It doesn’t matter one bit what you believe. Scientific facts are true whether you believe them or not. Evolution is a scientific fact. No presuppositions necessary - that’s your department.

I still don’t know what you think a “kind” is supposed to be. Are they just animals that look similar to each other? It’s not a term used in the scientific community, so it really has no bearing on evolution anyway.

That is the theory…but where is the observation? Yeah, dogs are descendents of the grey wolf, because they are the SAME KIND OF ANIMAL. You’ve told me your theory, so I will tell you mines. I believe that the grey wolf was the first of its kind…the “dog” kind. God may have created the grey wolf first…and it is through the grey wolf that all the others within the dog kind originated.

The observation is all over the place. Try reading some scientific papers or a textbook or something.

They may look alike, but dogs and grey wolves are not the same thing. You might think they’re the same kind or whatever, but that’s not a scientific term and has no meaning.

Your personal HYPOTHESIS explains nothing. How did the dog come from the wolf? What the hell is a “kind?” How do you demonstrate your HYPOTHESIS? When you’ve done some careful study and testing, published your paper in a scientific journal, had it reviewed by other scientists who actually study this stuff for a living and then have your hypothesis confirmed by further testing and scrutiny by independent groups of scientists, then get back to me. Evolution has been through this process, hence the reason it’s an accepted scientific theory. And by the way, even if you were able to show that it’s inaccurate (good luck with that), it doesn’t automatically make your hypothesis true. It still needs to make it through the process I outlined above.

Just like all of mankind originated from Adam and Eve, who were the first of their “kind”. God made an original “kind” of creature, to which all other creatures originated from. That is why we typically have different variations within the kinds, but they will always be of that kind.

Great, we know what your personal beliefs are. Demonstrate this please.

Because animals will not always be of “that kind.” Remember the example (you didn’t even respond to it) I presented to you where scientists attempted to domesticate foxes and within a few generations ended up with not only tamer animals (behavioral changes) but the physical characteristics of the foxes had changed as well? Now imagine the changes that would take place over longer periods of time, with the addition of more allopatric evolution, genetic drift, etc. – thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, millions of years, etc. You’d end up with an animal very different from the one you started with. That’s how it works. This is not in dispute, and it is demonstrable or it would not be accepted science.

So that is my theory.

What you mean is, that is your hypothesis. It means absolutely nothing without evidence.

So what? It is still within the dog “kind”. A different kind of animal is not originating. This is microevolution, which I fully endorse. This is not macroevolution.

A different kind of animal is originating. Think about the fox.

There’s no way you can accept microevolution without macroevolution unless you have a religious agenda. Microevolution inevitably leads macroevolution. Why do you think scientists don’t make distinctions between the two like you’re trying to do? Ya know, the guys who study this stuff for a living and know what they’re talking about.

Yes, they are. You get a dog, a wolf, and a malamute in the same room, and stare at them. How you can look at them and not conclude that they are the same kind of animal is beyond me. Then you say kind is not a scientific term, well, neither is the concept of macroevolution.

Oh boy, more Dr. Distraction nonsense.

Scientists don’t distinguish between micro and macroevolution, because the former leads to the latter. They are the same thing, with the only difference between them being the time periods involved.

Dr. Distraction doesn’t know the first thing about science, so I don’t know if I’d be using his silly “kind” comparison as evidence of anything. Good thing science isn’t done that way.

I want to see the observational evidence of macroevolution. That is what I want to see.

If you want to see it so badly, it’s out there for you to find, very easily. Have you tried looking?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47

Wait a minute, in a few quotes above, you said
And now you are saying that a dog did not come from a non-dog. Contradiction.

There is no contradiction at all here. I’ve explained this at least 3 or 4 different ways now. No single dog ever came from a single wolf; evolution works on populations, not on individuals. I am not saying now nor have I ever said that a non-dog will give birth to a dog. That’s a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. I’ve explained how it works, I’ve explained how over time the accumulation of changes leaves us with a different animals than we started with. These are accepted, demonstrable facts.

My understanding huh lol.

Yeah. I’ve explained it several times and several different ways now and I’ve provided links to help explain and illustrate further. I really don’t get what you’re not understanding. Please point it out.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Gish Gallop." LOL!

I think "Hovind Gallop" would work as well.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think "Hovind Gallop" would work as well.

Or perhaps "You've been hovinded" or "A gish best served cold... or never!"

 

[1robin]

Or perhaps "You've been hovinded" or "A gish best served cold... or never!"

Well we now have a great idea who you hold disdain for (not that I used or borrowed from either of them, or have heard of them, or they had originated the ideas, or anything relevant) and not one scrap of information why anything I said was the slightest bit inaccurate. Is theatrics a substitute for scholarship? Keep shooting messengers I did not use if you wish but let me know when the actual claims will be dealt with.

 

[1robin]

If you are neutral about common descent, why does it give you pause? It doesn't give pause to the majority of Christian biologists.

Until you at least attempt to contend with the ones I gave I am not adding additional ones.

My interest is not in disproving theistic evolution, but in disproving the kind of intelligent design that Ken Miller discusses in his article at The Flagellum Unspun. Most experts agree with Miller's opinions about the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity.

Since I have never mentioned Miller, any specific intelligent design model, nor that article why are you contending against a claim I have never made with an argument I have never denied? I would be more than happy to say I believe X is true and Y is wrong if I actually did. I believe x and y are true but where they overlap or divide I can't say.

If a God exists, he would not be limited by time regarding how he has used evolution.

That is actually an argument for God. A slow evolutionary process would only be a problem for a God with limited time. Mine is not limited in time.

If the Bible said that common descent is true, I doubt that you would be discussing it in this thread.

What?

In an article at There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True, well-known atheist biologist Jerry Coyne says that there has been sufficient time for evolution to occur. Consider the following from the article:

Did I claim there was insufficient time? Many scientists have but I do not recall saying that.


What are you doing? I have claimed countless things in this forum and your not contending against any of them. What conclusion are you trying to bait me into. I have said several times what I believe about evolution and nothing you have said has challenged that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

1. It is almost impossible to believe a natural sequence of events produced life. Many secular scientists put the numbers at worse that 1 in 10^80 and they are being very generous. The most accepted cosmological model posits a single finite universe. That makes it fine tuned to a precision that is not every understandable much less explained by nature. IOW for life we need an improbable universe, an improbably fine tuned universe for structure, and ever more improbably tuned one for life, and even more improbably fine tuned one for our type of life. Then we need a few million other improbable things to have life appear and be sustained.

The so called "fine-tuning problem" doesn't really have any bearing on evolutionary theory, nor does the plausibility of abiogenesis.

3. All major body types show up in the Cambrian almost in an instant without any significant development.

Not necessarily a flaw or a problem for evolutionary theory at all, much less a fatal one.

4. The preservation of things contrary to survival exist in spite of evolution.

Not that I'm aware of; clearly there are things which, prima facie, seem "contrary to survival" but which, upon closer analysis, have a specifiable adaptive function (altruism and morality, for instance).

5. The existence of distinct lines of demarcation like fertility or breeding capacity would not be what evolution should produce in the way it exists.

Why not?

6. The encoding in nature of rationality, law, information, and constants that do not even have a theoretical natural sources not even selection bias. Things like the Fibonacci, FI, I'm in a hurry but there are many.

You're going to have to be less vague than this; what do you mean "the encoding in nature of rationality, law, information and constants"? And regardless, supposing that things having no "theoretical natural sources" entails divine agency is, once again, an example of "God of the gaps" reasoning (which is an argument from ignorance)...

7. Irreducible complexity. A factual theory that only has uncertainty concerning specific application.

That complex structures such as the eye can and are produced by successive, beneficial adaptations has been shown; irreducible complexity is a discredited hypothesis.

The only objection I have is the claim evolution makes God even the slightest bit less likely or that it can do anything.

Evolution renders God's role in the explanation of the diversity of species superfluous- not "less likely".

A theory claimed to explain everything actually explains nothing.

An objection that clearly doesn't apply to evolutionary theory, since evolutionary theory does not "explain everything", since it is has specifiable truth-conditions- or, more pertinently, specifiable conditions which falsify it.

Ironically, "God did it" is a perfect example of an explanation that "explains everything"- and thus explains nothing. This is due to the fact that "God did it" is apparently consistent with any set of facts- meaning, it has as its truth-conditions every possible state-of-affars; it is unfalsifiable, and tells us exactly nothing in most cases.