Revelation is starting to make some sense..

Quote from deltastrike:

I would argue it takes evidence...if you're taking faith in anything it's that the scientists investigating these theories are performing their due diligence and presenting evidence/conclusions within the parameters of scientific integrity.
More...

one massive piece of evidence for the tuning is that they could take the standard model... with 20 constants out to 32 decimal places and find a higgs boson or something just like it.

How the hell can that be? 20 constants to 32 places... works? and it works that majestically that they find evidence of a field that creates mass for all particles in our universe...

that is incredible fine tuning.

how could something be that finely tuned.
how could the universe work in a way they we are even able to discover that? how the heck are we even around in a universe to discover that...
what are the odds...


some of the odds are as given to you by Penrose in that video and the exerpt from the book.
its fricken amazing.
 
Quote from deltastrike:

The most intriguing point is that it the hubble scope used to observe planets has confirmed that distances of far away galaxies are proportional to their redshifts. This is indicative of an apparent velocity, and the farther away the galaxies are the higher the velocity (I'm paraphrasing here from wikipedia as this point stands out the most to me).
More...

Do the studies reveal where the supposed central point of the bang happened?
If they can see the effects of an apparent velocity this should be knowable/discoverable.

I would also like to apply my question to the theory of evolution.

Question: I would like to know what piece of scientific evidence (proof) convinced (proved) to you that the theory of evolution is true?
In your own words, please. (I want to know how you understand it in your mind.) No cut & pasted links, etc...
 
Quote from rcn10ec:

Do the studies reveal where the supposed central point of the bang happened?
If they can see the effects of an apparent velocity this should be knowable/discoverable.

I would also like to apply my question to the theory of evolution.

Question: I would like to know what piece of scientific evidence (proof) convinced (proved) to you that the theory of evolution is true?
In your own words, please. (I want to know how you understand it in your mind.) No cut & pasted links, etc...
More...

the discovery and the confirmation of the background radiation in the video I presented from penrose... goes a very long way to confirming the big bang.

A big bang is consistent with the idea of a Creator.
 
Quote from jem:

the discovery and the confirmation of the background radiation in the video I presented from penrose... goes a very long way to confirming the big bang.

A big bang is consistent with the idea of a Creator.
More...

Agreed.
 
Quote from rcn10ec:

Do the studies reveal where the supposed central point of the bang happened?
If they can see the effects of an apparent velocity this should be knowable/discoverable.

I would also like to apply my question to the theory of evolution.

Question: I would like to know what piece of scientific evidence (proof) convinced (proved) to you that the theory of evolution is true?
In your own words, please. (I want to know how you understand it in your mind.) No cut & pasted links, etc...
More...

Really? You're going to try to debate the validity of evolution?
 
Quote from jem:

one massive piece of evidence for the tuning is that they could take the standard model... with 20 constants out to 32 decimal places and find a higgs boson or something just like it.

How the hell can that be? 20 constants to 32 places... works? and it works that majestically that they find evidence of a field that creates mass for all particles in our universe...

that is incredible fine tuning.

how could something be that finely tuned.
how could the universe work in a way they we are even able to discover that? how the heck are we even around in a universe to discover that...
what are the odds...


some of the odds are as given to you by Penrose in that video and the exerpt from the book.
its fricken amazing.
More...

Although I'm still digesting your evidence, I will point out again that the Penrose figure IGNORES the relative probability density of various scenarios. The figure derived is from a single scenario. It is impossible to account for all scenarios with this figure. Not to mention the video provided is out of context. He goes on to explain his statement in the full lecture (a video I can't find at the moment).

Additionally, I insist that you are completely taking Dawkin's video out of context to fit your argument. He's investigating the assumption that the universe is fine tuned and outlines various theories. The one that you appear to be clinging to, and the one he discusses the most, is where we live in a bubble (universe) within the multiverse foam that has tuned constants capable of supporting life. Not that this bubble has been intentionally fine tuned to support life. I really think you've missed the point of that video.

As for your "Constant Gardner" point...I don't see how you can present this as evidence alongside the Dawkins video when he refutes those models in the first three minutes...

And I'm still curious how you define "designer"? Is this a secular term or a religious term?

The point of view of Victor Stenger, which is the one I currently hold, is still a serious point of view and the number of followers of this theory really are not dwindling as you suggest (nor do you have proof of that).
 
Quote from jem:

its amazing you are willing to sound the trumpet of your own ignorance... so loundly

Science has been attempting for decades to explain why the constants are tuned so finely.

The fact is the constants are incredibly fine tuned... the explanation is

1 a Tuner

or the answer is faith based...

2. a so far unseen untested multiverse - takes faith
3. future explanation - perhaps a theory of everything - which also takes faith


how you could continue to bullshit abut this subject stu is amazing.
The economist lays it out for you...

See the title of the paragraph... the constant gardener... get it...

http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

"The constant gardener

One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."
More...

As I say, that same old tired argument already refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads.

There is no science whatsoever anywhere that suggests anything but the constants are at the values they are due to the laws of physics as they are indeed manifested by the Higgs boson.
 
Quote from deltastrike:

Really? You're going to try to debate the validity of evolution?
More...

Just want to know your personal answer to the question.
What is the scientific evidence that convinced you evolution is true?
 
Quote from rcn10ec:

Just want to know your personal answer to the question.
What is the scientific evidence that convinced you evolution is true?
More...

There is a ton of of evidence substantiating this theory...the question is where to start?

Well, I guess we can start small with bacteria. Bacteria is one of the most adaptable organisms on the planet. This is possible because they are able to easily share genetic material with surrounding bacterium, thus adding to their genetic code. This is one reason why so many anti-bacterial resistant varieties are starting to emerge. We've been able to use them to wipe out a lot of bad bugs, but there was a plasmid of genetic code contained by one variety that was resistant to a specific anti-bacterial. Then another, then another, then another, each resistant to different specific anti-bacterials. As these populations grew more genetic code was shared. The populations lacking this code were wiped out, allowing the resistant populations to grow and become prevalent.

This is essentially how evolution works.

From here speciation can occur, along with other factors such as geologic isolation (case in point, Australia) and other external stressors.

If you would like a visual of this simply take a look at the phylogenetic tree.

I could literally go on and on about this as it was my professional and academic focus...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top