Revelation is starting to make some sense..

Quote from jem:

well stated.

Penrose has another video in which he discusses the two points you made. he has stated that even if you were to use the number of universes speculated as possible solutions... (which polchiski calculated as 10 to the 500 and then Susskind use that number and just guessed that each solution of string theory could acutually be a universe...) that amount of universes would not counter the fine tuning argument.

I will look for the penrose video...


regarding...
rees and dawkins...

I am not arguing one universe or many... I am simply stating that science says our one universe appears designed.

I am further suggesting that if you were to consider the options... the razor would posit that a tuned universe would suggest tuner...more readily than an unseen unproven multiverse. (which does not rule out a creator anyway)
More...

I'd like to see that video out of curiosity.

As for your statement, I think I can once again tie that back to evolution as an example. Life itself appears designed, but as science has proven and continues to prove, we have evolved from lesser forms via random processes. I think as we humans continue to unfold the mysteries of the universe we will find these similar-type processes at work - that is if we can ever truly understand the cosmos. Another example, which I'm sure you're familiar with, put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters and eventually you'll get Shakespeare. Sure, it's highly improbable, but if enough universes are "bubbling", eventually one will come into being that can support life.

And as for the razor...I think you and I both know you can't really apply here or to science, if you did we could sum up all scientific fields in one sentence:

"It is x, because it's God's will." - The simplest answer.

Instead, we know it to be: "It is x, because of evidence showing y interacts with z" and so on.

Like I said before, the razor is a logical tool set in one element of critical thinking, ignore the rest of those elements and you're not fully investigating your assumptions.
 
Quote from jem:

I am simply stating that science says our one universe appears designed.
More...

"Designed" implies designer and around 80% of the most prominent physical scientists (cosmologists, astronomers etc.) don't believe in God. So no, science as whole does NOT say the the universe is designed. Sorry.

Edit: Some scientists may say it "appears" designed. But again, you're playing word games if you're suggesting that by this science says our universe is designed.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

"Designed" implies designer and around 80% of the most prominent physical scientists (cosmologists, astronomers etc.) don't believe in God. So no, science as whole does NOT say the the universe is designed. Sorry.
More...

click on the link above... you are arguing from a place of ignorance.
seriously...
 
a. that video... is also at the closertothetruthwebsite cited above... search on penrose...


b. if you study the time frames involved... some of the best scientists have argued that life did not have time to evolve from non life here on earth.


Stu lied and said there he had proof or evidence that life evolved from non life.

I challenged him. He never produced it because science does not have a plausible pathway from non life to life yet.

regarding the monkeys producing a work of shakespeare by typing randomly....

from wikipedia...

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters and symbols ad infinitum. The relevance of the theory is questionable—the probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time even a hundred thousand orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but not zero).

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

Quote from deltastrike:

I'd like to see that video out of curiosity.

As for your statement, I think I can once again tie that back to evolution as an example. Life itself appears designed, but as science has proven and continues to prove, we have evolved from lesser forms via random processes. I think as we humans continue to unfold the mysteries of the universe we will find these similar-type processes at work - that is if we can ever truly understand the cosmos. Another example, which I'm sure you're familiar with, put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters and eventually you'll get Shakespeare. Sure, it's highly improbable, but if enough universes are "bubbling", eventually one will come into being that can support life.

And as for the razor...I think you and I both know you can't really apply here or to science, if you did we could sum up all scientific fields in one sentence:

"It is x, because it's God's will." - The simplest answer.

Instead, we know it to be: "It is x, because of evidence showing y interacts with z" and so on.

Like I said before, the razor is a logical tool set in one element of critical thinking, ignore the rest of those elements and you're not fully investigating your assumptions.
More...
 
Can anyone post an actual photo of a transitional fossil?
The search results I keep coming up with do not show conclusive evidence of transition.
You would think hundreds of thousands of conclusive transitional fossil photos would be available to look at.
Again, I don't want links to websites pasted. I want to see what your idea of proof is specifically.
 
Quote from rcn10ec:

Can anyone post an actual photo of a transitional fossil?
The search results I keep coming up with do not show conclusive evidence of transition.
You would think hundreds of thousands of conclusive transitional fossil photos would be available to look at.
Again, I don't want links to websites pasted. I want to see what your idea of proof is specifically.
More...

Well fossils don't photograph very well and drawings of the specimens show more detail. This is true throughout the natural world. The best book for birding has drawings not photos. But here is a photo of a fossil of a very important transitional line of species. The lobe fin fishes. They gave us a leg up. Some of them, like the mudskipper today, evolved into efficient air breathers also. And then the race was on.

eusthenopteron.jpg




" One group of lobe-fins gave rise to the tetrapods, which have become other most successful group of vertebrates. Strictly speaking, since tetrapods evolved from lobe-fins, all tetrapods –including us— are also lobe-fins.

Lobe-fins are characterized by their fleshy pelvic and pectoral fins with well developed bones and muscles. These fins join (or articulate) to the body via a single bone (humerus to the shoulder or pectoral girdle, and femur to the pelvis). In contrast, ray-fin fishes sport fins that contain several rod-like bones that articulate directly with the pectoral and pelvic girdles."
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Well here is a photo of a fossil of a very important transitional line of species. The lobe fin fishes. They gave us a leg up. Some of them, like the mudskipper today, evolved into efficient air breathers also. And then the race was on.
eusthenopteron.jpg

" One group of lobe-fins gave rise to the tetrapods, which have become other most successful group of vertebrates. Strictly speaking, since tetrapods evolved from lobe-fins, all tetrapods –including us— are also lobe-fins.
More...
Can you prove your above statements with photos?
Is there proof your photo is a transitional species?
Are there pics of the before and after stages of this fish?
Is there proof this species macroevolved into an amphibian or anything else?

Below are photos of the trilobite. It's a good example of microevolution.
These specimens differ from each other but, they are all still trilobites. You would see the same result if you examined dogs at a dog breeder.
One thing to note... the specimen seems to be regressing. Not progressing

This is the fossil head of the Olenellus fremonti, a trilobite from the “oldest” geologic layer of these four examples
Olenellus_fremonti.jpg

This is the fossil head of the Olenellus mohavensis, a trilobite from the “second oldest” geologic layer of these four examples.
Olenellus_mohavensis.jpg

This is the fossil head of the Bristolia bristolensis, a trilobite from the “second youngest” geologic layer of these four examples.
Bristolia_bristolensis.jpg

This is the fossil head of a Bristolia insolens, a trilobite from the “youngest” geologic layer of these four examples.
Bristolia_insolens.jpg


You got anything else that might convince me?
Seems there would be tons of examples online if they existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top