The fine tuning argument has turned up more than a few number of times in the past. I really don't understand why people keep referring back to this same old argument again and again.
For those that have been living under a rock, the fine tuning basically says that the universe seems to be fine tuned to support life on Earth.
Why can't people see the obvious flaw in this logic? Allow me to give some analogies to demonstrate how obviously stupid this argument is.
(1) Our fingers seem to be fine tuned to use a keyboard.
(2) Tall skyscrapers in large metropolitan areas have fine tuned the regions to not allow any tornado to form.
(3) My mouth seems to be fine tuned to perform oral sex on David.
All three of these arguments are obviously flawed, not to mention stupid.
Number 1 is backward. Our hands and fingers are not fine tuned to use the keyboard. We designed the keyboard such that it is comfortable to a certain level for us to type.
Number 2 is just dumb. Why would you want to build a big city right in the middle of tornado valley? I have often heard the argument that you can't have a tornado in a city because those buildings just won't allow the wind to gain enough energy to form into a tornado. Again, it's just stupid to think that tornados didn't exist before the modern era.
Number 3 is again just stupid. You make the best with what you have. There's no hidden meaning or design behind it. It's there. It works. You use it.
Considering the age of the universe and the age of life on earth, life on earth have only been a small part of the history of the universe. Through natural selection, life have adapted to survive in the environments that are already there. The environments didn't exist for life to live in. Life had to mold itself to survive in those environments.
™ Version 4.2