Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

You ask where the appearance of fine-tuning came from. You've decided the "God did it" argument suffices as an answer. I'm saying a theory supported by mathematics blows such arguments to smithereens, even if both are technically conjecture. So we have a multi-verse theory, supported by mathematics, and compatible with conventional theories of physics. And then we have the..."God did it" argument which would be laughed at in even the most average physics lecture halls.

first of all I am not saying the fine tunings means god did it.
it is possible science will someday find a natural answer for the fine tunings an apparent design...

as far as your taking comfort in the math... here is a favorite quote of mine.
---

"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

 

[Eight]

I just love the Evolution Fantasy Land [EFL to insiders]!! It's a magical place where random chance actually takes things to a higher state of organization!! Wow, there is not a single, solitary, not even one [even] thing that I can think of that goes to a higher state of organization without inputs of intelligence and energy... but the thing is, the inhabitants of EFL will tell us that these things take a very long time...

How convenient it is that there is no way to prove this idea!! We will have to really work at it, with lots of grant money, to try to find a way to prove that something can go to a higher state of organization by random chance... They talk about random selection but how did things get to that higher state of organization that had to set the stage for the natural selection to begin? Natural selection occurs at a much, much higher state of organization than what can be attained by random chance given the basic raw materials we are familiar with.. maybe dirt got where it is by.. oh never mind...

It's good that EFL insiders control the venue for the debate, because if they did not, if they had to win a free and open debate, and could not teach their ideas in a school until they proved them.. well they would cease to exist as a school and wouldn't that be just AWFUL!!

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Eight:

I just love the Evolution Fantasy Land [EFL to insiders]!! It's a magical place where random chance actually takes things to a higher state of organization!! Wow, there is not a single, solitary, not even one [even] thing that I can think of that goes to a higher state of organization without inputs of intelligence and energy... but the thing is, the inhabitants of EFL will tell us that these things take a very long time...

It's called "natural selection". Read up on it.
-----
Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

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

How convenient it is that there is no way to prove this idea!! We will have to really work at it, with lots of grant money, to try to find a way to prove that something can go to a higher state of organization by random chance... They talk about random selection but how did things get to that higher state of organization that had to set the stage for the natural selection to begin? Natural selection occurs at a much, much higher state of organization than what can be attained by random chance given the basic raw materials we are familiar with.. maybe dirt got where it is by.. oh never mind...

The evidence is right in front of you.
-------
Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

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

It's good that EFL insiders control the venue for the debate, because if they did not, if they had to win a free and open debate, and could not teach their ideas in a school until they proved them.. well they would cease to exist as a school and wouldn't that be just AWFUL!!

Should geologists have debates with people who believe the earth is flat?

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

first of all I am not saying the fine tunings means god did it.
it is possible science will someday find a natural answer for the fine tunings an apparent design...

Why does the universe appear fine-tuned? That's a question I wish we could answer in my life-time.

as far as your taking comfort in the math... here is a favorite quote of mine.
---

"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

I don't see how the multi-verse is a quasi-religious theory at all. It totally agrees, mathematically and in principle, with quantum mechanics. No other explanation even comes close.

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Neither. Quantum mechanics and chaos theory both detail the inherent randomness of the universe, how order can arise from chaos, and how something can come from nothing. It is certainly plausible, according to these theories that there needn't be a "tuner". The appearance of fine-tuning is only that until the "fine-tuner" comes forward to prove itself to us. That event is extremely unlikely so such a concept will stay in the realm of theology/philosophy for the foreseeable future...unfortunately, as I want to know the ultimate answer too!

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from Betapeg:

You ask where the appearance of fine-tuning came from. You've decided the "God did it" argument suffices as an answer. I'm saying a theory supported by mathematics blows such arguments to smithereens, even if both are technically conjecture. So we have a multi-verse theory, supported by mathematics, and compatible with conventional theories of physics. And then we have the..."God did it" argument which would be laughed at in even the most average physics lecture halls.

Who told you multiverse theory was supported by mathmatics. Please point us to the equation that proves the multiverse exists.

(that should keep you on a wild goose chase for a couple years)

 

[Trader666]

Wrong. Your "logic" (as usual) is seriously flawed and your continued lying that I've provided "no argument" speaks to your lack of integrity, on top of your colossal STUpidity.

Here are your exact words:

A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.

First, one is NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other. And even if it was, that does not necessarily mean anything with respect to their relative plausibility or implausibility.

So keep stomping your little feet and spewing your crackpot logic if it makes you feel better... but all you're really doing is making an even bigger fool of yourself with every STUpid post.

Quote from STUpid:

I've already explained a number of times why there is an equal implausibility and why so particularly, based on unfalsifiability.

You've provided no argument yet which has stood in any reasonable way to support your assertions.

 

[Trader666]

Again you assume motive despite denying it before.

Yes pretending. I was absolutely right about you based on how you made an ass of yourself in the options forum. Your "thinking" is sloppy, you don't know what you don't know, and you're a total jackass.

Act like a jackass and I'll treat you like one so too bad. Need a tissue, princess? You're the one who made the statement so you tell me on what basis. At first you mentioned something about falsifiability but every time I've confronted you about that, you've ignored me.

You don't have the intellect or the integrity for this discussion.

Quote from Betapeg:

Why an all-powerful Creator being needs religious people to convince others of its existence? Yea, that sounds really logical for such an entity...

Pretending? Can you ffs get off me personally? Why don't you focus on the "shown its existence" part and explain how such a statement is false, instead of obsessing over me. Can you do that PLEASE?????

Again, can you stop focusing on me, and focus on the argument? Yes, the Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor. Why is that not a true statement?

 

[Trader666]

At least Dawkins had the integrity and the intelligence to admit he's not certain (unlike you). Shouldn't you be blowing up your paper trading account?

Quote from Betapeg:

Riiiiiiight. Ben Stein is just mentioning gaps in our knowledge and of course, "God did it" (Intelligent Design) is his implied conclusion.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Who told you multiverse theory was supported by mathmatics.

Why do I need to be "told"?? I can think perfectly on my own.

Please point us to the equation that proves the multiverse exists.

The multi-verse isn't proven. String theory merely provides the mathematical framework which makes it physically possible. What do you have? "God did it."

(that should keep you on a wild goose chase for a couple years)

Such arrogance on your part is laughable.

 

[Trader666]

Multiverse? Scientists know almost nothing about 96% of THIS universe which they currently call dark energy and dark matter in an attempt to explain discrepancies between observations and theory. Those are relatively recent placeholder concepts so the real joke is how crackpots like you worship at the alter science without even realizing how little we actually know.

Quote from Betapeg:

So we have a multi-verse theory, supported by mathematics, and compatible with conventional theories of physics. And then we have the..."God did it" argument which would be laughed at in even the most average physics lecture halls.