Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 166 of 506 (695064)
04-02-2013 12:09 PM


The Fine-Tuning Argument: Some Objections
Let's look at some of the problems of the fine-tuning argument.
(1) Some of the things that are claimed to be fine-tuned just aren't. We can look at those on a case-by-case basis when and if any of its advocates start producing specific arguments.
(2) We simply don't know how many universes there are. By definition, we can see only one. This would be true if there were lots. This would be true if there were an infinite number of them.
There are some ideas in physics which seem to imply that there are lots. I don't consider any of these ideas to be definitely proven, but equally we can't rule it out.
(3) The fine-tuning argument implicitly assumes that when the universe was formed, any imaginable combination of independent physical constants was equally likely. But we don't know that --- this is one of the many things we don't know about the formation of the universe. To use an analogy, suppose you draw an ace of hearts from a pack of cards. The chances of that, you would say, are 1/52. But you can only say that because you know the composition of a deck of cards. What if there was only one card in the deck? What if there were 52, but they were all the ace of hearts?
Now, since we know so little about how universes come into existence, we do not, so to speak, know the composition of the deck.
(4) Physicists have pointed out a flaw in the fine-tuning argument as follows: the arguments for fine-tuning always seem to involve seeing what would happen if you changed one constant while leaving all the rest exactly the same, seemingly establishing that there is only a small patch of what we might call "universe space" in which life can flourish. But what if several of them were different? There might be large chunks of "universe space" in which life is perfectly possible.
(5) The Puddle Fallacy. The fine-tuning argument assumes that the life we're talking about has to be a lot like us. Now this is something that's really beyond anyone's abilities to say; no-one can really contemplate the possible biology of a universe unlike ours and say that there couldn't be any.
Now the significance of this point is that if there are lots of potential universes in which intelligent beings could be sitting about saying "Golly, this universe is well-adapted to us", then it is of no particular interest that we can say it in the universe we happen to live in.
(6) The having-your-cake-and-eating-it problem. The puzzle about fine-tuning is that the universe seems to be peculiarly well adapted to produce the conditions for life. But creationists claim that it isn't. For example, I once saw a pamphlet from the Jehovah's Witnesses which adduced the fine-tuning article on one page, and a couple of pages later asserted that star formation was impossible and must have required a miracle. But in that case the universe is fine-tuned against life.
It is conceivable that fine-tuning did require one big miracle; but if fine-tuning exists, then it does away with the requirement for lots of little miracles. It implies deism rather than the book of Genesis.
Indeed, the fine-tuning argument could be stood on its head and used as an argument against fiat creationism. A creator God could presumably have chosen any physical constants he wanted; and then he could have brought about things like stars and planets and elements heavier than helium by doing miracles. So why, we might ask, did he choose just those physical constants which allow scientists to produce naturalistic explanations for these things? He would have no actual need to do so, so did he do it just to dick around with scientists?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2013 5:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 196 by designtheorist, posted 04-04-2013 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 167 of 506 (695073)
04-02-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
04-02-2013 8:22 AM


Just being real writes:
Again we don't know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere.
Except that, yes, we do know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere all the time. You still have a very strong skepticism toward what is a well known and well established phenomenon. That's why I pointed you at the Wikipedia Article on Virtual Particles, because it will be a lot easier to answer your other questions once you understand that we're not making it up.
But obviously you didn't even glance at the Wikipedia article, because if you had you would have seen the list, under Manifestations, of many ways virtual particles manifest themselves in addition to the Casimir effect.
So in order that your doubts about virtual particles don't get in the way of our attempts to answer your questions, why don't you just give the Wikipedia article a read. We could discuss virtual particles here in this thread, but "Why Virtual Particles are Real" isn't the topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:22 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Just being real, posted 04-18-2013 9:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 506 (695074)
04-02-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by bluegenes
04-02-2013 4:08 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Exactly. If the pothole were a different shape, the puddle would be. Why is that an "issue"?
Perhaps my post was not clear.
I did not argue with that conclusion.
What I took issue with is that the problem could be solved even when considering a single universe by using the water shaped by hole argument. In my opinion that's incorrect because a single universe might well be utterly devoid of life, or it might last only a single micro second, etc.
In other words, the problem is greater than simply life adopting to fill in a niche, because there might not even be a puddle if we have only a single universe.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2013 4:08 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2013 4:15 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 169 of 506 (695077)
04-02-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
04-02-2013 8:22 AM


And finally, if the casimir effect is truly the creation of new photons from nothing, then you must completely throw out the law of conservation of energy which makes this an impossible event.
If you've read any of the articles Percy pointed you to, then you would understand that conservation of energy is an addressed concern. But you apparently cannot be bothered to learn too much about what you are critquing.
I'm going to enumerate some of the incorrect statements in this post. I could easily double the size of the list by addressing your statements in finer granularity.
The interpretation is that new photons are being created from nothing and therefore this could explain where the universe came from.
Who said that the virtual particles must be photons? They could have been gluons, anti-particle pairs, perhaps even bosons.
Again we don't know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere.
We have a verified theory that predicts that the phenomenon happens everywhere. But I suppose that in some sense, I don't "know" that the refigerator light stays off when the door is shut.
Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum, then how do we know that it is not a result of those conditions?
Where did you get the idea that virtual particles only appear between metal plates in a vacuum. You made this up, and it turns out to be wrong. Percy has provided you some pointers to check out.
Next, most physicists tell us that nothing can theoretically exist smaller than a planck. So when you wind everything backwards to a time when it was the size of a zero point of energy, you have no space left for a quantum fluctuation to occur.
Was the universe ever zero size? What theory says that?
Personally I think that the casimir effect is some unexplained conversion process taking place, not the creation of new particles from nothing.
Your personal opinion? On advanced physics?
Lol. As if dude. As if.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:22 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 170 of 506 (695084)
04-02-2013 3:21 PM


Virtual Particles and the Universe.
Just being real, virtual particles and the mechanism in Quantum Gravitational theories where by the universe "pops" into existence are completely unrelated processes.
The universe popping into existence is more closely related to a phenomena called quantum tunneling.
Basically most quantum theories have a classical version. For instance the quantum hydrogen atoms has a classical version where the electron is simply a ball orbiting the nucleus through electric attraction.
Of course the quantum and classical versions of a given theory can have very different physics. The quantum hydrogen atom is stable, where as the classical hydrogen atom implodes very quickly releasing a burst of gamma radiation.
A general feature of quantum theories is that they allow particles to jump across barriers present in their classical versions. For instance in a classical model of the nucleus, the edge of the nucleus is like a hard wall preventing the nucleons from escaping. Nucleons can either live inside or outside the nucleus. However the typical energy possessed by a nucleon makes it impossible for it to go from the inside to the outside.
The quantum model of the nucleus however allows nucleons to "jump" across the barrier. This is quantum tunneling, but I should explain it better.
The real problem with moving through the barrier in classical mechanics is the energy required to do it. You and I have no problem walking around the inside and outside of a building, but moving through the wall separating the two is not possible for us with typical walking energies.
Here is the main point: Classical Mechanics requires objects to have consistent histories. You can't get from one side of the wall to the other without moving through the wall.
Quantum Mechanics has no such restriction, it provides a particle with some non-negligible probability to just suddenly be on the other side of the wall, without any requirement of historical consistency of having actually moved from A to B via the points in between.
So if you take a classical theory, it's quantum version allows objects to be in one state A and then suddenly be in another state B, without actually "going from" A to B.
Now, if you think of classical gravity, that is General Relativity, we could take the two following states:
A = No universe.
B = Small expanding hot universe.
Now, classically of course you can't go from A to B. Classical intuition, which we all possess, prevents such a transition, how could something come from nothing?
This is perfectly correct, but quantum theories of gravity bypass it by basically just dropping the transition between states. You just occupy state A and then state B with no "history" in between.
This is quantum tunneling.

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Son Goku, posted 04-03-2013 2:42 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 171 of 506 (695088)
04-02-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by NoNukes
04-02-2013 12:55 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
NoNukes writes:
What I took issue with is that the problem could be solved even when considering a single universe by using the water shaped by hole argument. In my opinion that's incorrect because a single universe might well be utterly devoid of life, or it might last only a single micro second, etc.
Of course (to the last sentence, assuming a whole range of different outcomes are possible, although we can't be sure). Why is that a problem?
NoNukes writes:
In other words, the problem is greater than simply life adopting to fill in a niche, because there might not even be a puddle if we have only a single universe.
Why would a lifeless puddle or no puddle at all be a problem? For whom?
What I'm pointing out with the jagged puddle in the jagged pothole truism is that it makes no sense to look at the world and observe something that is part of it, and then say "how amazing, the physical nature of this world is exactly right to form that something". What else would we expect?
I don't see a "problem" with only one world. If there is only one world, it has to have a physical character. If there were many possible alternatives that could have formed, and only one did, someone's got to win the lottery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 12:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 5:32 PM bluegenes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 172 of 506 (695091)
04-02-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2013 12:09 PM


Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: Some Objections
A couple more.
ANYTHING can be explained by the idea that an intelligent being with the desire and capability to do it, did it. So, if that's all you have it isn't a very good argument.
What you need is two things.
First, the proposed agent must be plausible - and the more plausible the better. But scientifically a God has a very low plausibility.
Second, we need very good reasons to suppose that if an agent of that sort existed that it WOULD desire to produce what we see. And that's a pretty tall order for a God. Especially the Christian God who is supposed to be ineffable - beyond our comprehension. "We can't possibly know" is no assurance whatsoever.
In comparison the multiverse hypothesis scores well on plausibility (it's implied by reasonable theories) and given a sufficiently large number of universes it's pretty likely to produce at least one habitable universe. And it's more parsimonious than the God hypothesis.
From a scientific viewpoint fine tuning as an argument for God is pretty worthless. It's not much better from a philosophical point of view, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 12:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 506 (695092)
04-02-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by bluegenes
04-02-2013 4:15 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Of course (to the last sentence, assuming a whole range of different outcomes are possible, although we can't be sure). Why is that a problem?
Because we don't live in a lifeless universe?
The argument we want to counter is: "The universe has constants which are fine tuned for life".
You cannot counter that argument with, "Randomly setting the constants might well produce a universe in which no life could exist. but a lifeless universe is just fine".
You would need to further show some other things if you want to support the single universe proposition. E.g. significant probability of producing life, constants are not random/independently selected/etc.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2013 4:15 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 6:33 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 2:17 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 506 (695095)
04-02-2013 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
04-02-2013 5:32 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Because we don't live in a lifeless universe?
Sure. But the thing is that even if a lifeless universe was a zillion times more probable than one with life, the probability is zero that we'd be sitting around discussing this issue in a lifeless universe and saying: "Yeah, we don't exist. Statistically, this is exactly what we should expect."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 5:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 10:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 506 (695101)
04-02-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2013 6:33 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Statistically, this is exactly what we should expect."
You've given a perfect counter to a completely different fine tuning argument than the one I'm complaining about.
If there is only a single universe, one can make the fine tuning argument that the probability of constants allowing any life at all is tiny. Simply pointing out that we exist and that our universe does indeed have life does not counter that argument at all.
That's why we add additional arguments to the single universe arguments or why we make a multiverse arguments. Your post listing the problems with fine tuning = design listed some arguments that I might use.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 6:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 176 of 506 (695102)
04-02-2013 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Just being real
04-02-2013 8:23 AM


How about you provide me with just one example where the phenomena has been observed apart from the parameters of the universe.
You want experiments run outside of the universe? Yeah, that's reasonable.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:23 AM Just being real has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 177 of 506 (695112)
04-03-2013 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
04-02-2013 5:32 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
NoNukes writes:
Because we don't live in a lifeless universe?
Why would any particular universe be a "problem"?
NoNukes writes:
The argument we want to counter is: "The universe has constants which are fine tuned for life".
Then we're on a slightly different page. I was countering the argument that fine tuning indicated intent (intelligent design), probably because this is EvC, and the person bringing up the subject is a creationist who thinkes fine tuning supports I.D.
I think it's reasonable to assume that any world (or universe, as most people seem to be calling the known universe, presumably on the basis that lots of different things can all separately be universal) would in some senses appear to be "fine tuned" to be itself. In a similar way, the coastline of Britain will appear to be fine tuned to fit the island. I don't find that a "problem". I find it to be necessary, however many islands exist or could concievably have existed, from one to quadrillions of quadrillions.
NoNukes writes:
You cannot counter that argument with, "Randomly setting the constants might well produce a universe in which no life could exist. but a lifeless universe is just fine".
The "puddle fits the pothole" truism isn't an argument against fine tuning. It just says "big deal"!
NoNukes writes:
You would need to further show some other things if you want to support the single universe proposition. E.g. significant probability of producing life, constants are not random/independently selected/etc.
Why? Let's suppose a scenario in which there could be quadrillions of types of world formed, but there's only this one. Only a tiny fraction of those hypothetical alternatives would have had life, and and even tinier fraction, our type of life. There isn't actually a "problem", just a misunderstanding of probabilities.
At any one time, America will have a single president with a name. Any particular name is very unlikely to be the result. So, do you see the improbability "Barak Obama" as a problem?
NoNukes writes:
If there is only a single universe, one can make the fine tuning argument that the probability of constants allowing any life at all is tiny. Simply pointing out that we exist and that our universe does indeed have life does not counter that argument at all.
Work out the probability of your own existence assuming the existence of our species. Consider all the hypothetical genetic siblings your parents could have had instead of you. Then consider that the same remote chance was required to produce those two parents, your four grand parents, the 8 in the previous generation, and so on. It appears that you shouldn't exist; that the probability is vanishingly small. Why is your existence a "problem"? Do we need a "many worlds" (or multi-verse, as you put it) hypothesis to explain you?
NoNukes writes:
That's why we add additional arguments to the single universe arguments or why we make a multiverse arguments.
Are you possibly making the (usually religious) mistake of seeing life as a target?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 5:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 8:29 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 179 by petrophysics1, posted 04-03-2013 9:42 AM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 506 (695114)
04-03-2013 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by bluegenes
04-03-2013 2:17 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Why? Let's suppose a scenario in which there could be quadrillions of types of world formed, but there's only this one.
I think you are confusing two types of scenarios. Imagine a 10,000,000 card deck with 3 jokers in it, where a full house with jokers represents a life bearing universe.
It might well be true that every particular five card hand we deal is rare. But we have to get some hand, so we should not consider getting a particular hand (like getting me given humans) to be indicative of design. But getting a joker based full house is a rare hand in a quite different way. The probability of getting that hand in a single deal is impossibly low. It is low enough that we should be looking for an explanation for why it turned up.
The error is in assuming that the explanation must be design and not assuming that an explanation of some type is necessary. And that's what I think was missing from your argument.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 2:17 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 11:09 AM NoNukes has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 506 (695125)
04-03-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by bluegenes
04-03-2013 2:17 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Hi bluegenes,
I agree with you here but was trying to think of an example of what NoNukes is doing since you both appear to be talking past each other.
Over 40 years ago while taking Statistics for the Earth Sciences on my first homework assignment one of the questions wanted me to take a coin and flip it 25 times, record it in a table, and do the calculations to show that the probability of getting heads or tails was 50:50.
Ok, so I flip 25 times and get 2 heads and then 23 tails in a row. The probability of that happening is very very small, and it isn't going to illustrate what the problem wants. However since that's what happened that's what I put down.
Now I get my homework back and the prof has marked this problem wrong and included a sarcastic comment implying I made this up, or let's use the right word here, that I DESIGNED this because the probablity of this happening was so small. Of course he was 100% wrong.
Probablity applied to the past is basically meaningless. What you see is what you get, what exists, exists however improbable. It tells you nothing about design and doesn't even imply it. It is just
what is.
So I don't see a problem here for one world or many.
P.S. It appears to me creationists are married to the ideas that God created this universe and the life in it. If you are not married to those ideas you will understand that the existence of the universe and life by natural means says nothing about the existence of God or not.
Edited by petrophysics1, : typo
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 2:17 AM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2013 10:27 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 180 of 506 (695129)
04-03-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by petrophysics1
04-03-2013 9:42 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
petrophysics1 writes:
flip it 25 times, record it in a table, and do the calculations to show that the probability of getting heads or tails was 50:50.
Hi Petrophysics1,
As we discovered the probabilty is 50/50 for each time. Each flip is completely independant of the previous toss. You would think if you tossed it enough times it would average out to 50/50, but it does not have to. You really would of blown your profs mind it all 25 tosses were tails. What you see is what you get as you say. That is why arguments from incredulty are fallicious. Because improbabilty does not mean impossible. imo

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by petrophysics1, posted 04-03-2013 9:42 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024