Summations Only

Get specific about what you consider fine tuning and then we can discuss whether or not it is evidence for your asserted Designer or Creator God.I make no comments about anyone's intelligence, only about the ideas presented.Paul was often a horses ass and was absolutely wrong about many things. That does not mean he was not sincere, just that he was completely wrong and often showed really slopping thinking.If you think that the Cambrian explosion show anything about design, then I must assume that you know nearly nothing about what the Cambrian Explosion was.The difference when it comes to evidence really comes down to "what can be presented".There is ample and overwhelming evidence of natural causes. Until you can present comparable evidence for any supernatural causes you have nothing.

Message 384

quote:

---

Percy's Law: Any discussion between creationists and evolutionists, whether about cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry or biology, will eventually come down to Darwin.

---

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"Scientists don't begin with a conclusion then bend the evidence to fit within that conclusion. They try to conform their conclusions to the evidence. He's not a scientist."Oh... so...evolutionists didn't decide that God didn't exist until after they saw all those transitional intermediates on the lab table...right? I don't mean to sound rude, but that's a bit of a double standard, it seems.The entire concept of evolution was approached in exactly the manner you're demonizing.And you're one hundred percent sure he doesn't follow the scientific method at all? You may be right, but I doubt it. I could be wrong... it has happened before.In my first post on this subject, I told you some of the publications in which he's written. You are free to explore them if you like. I haven't, but I would be interested to know what you find.

Can you conceive of a universe that wouldn't be consistent with the existence of a creator god or designer? If not, the fact that this one is consistent is of no significance.

​

My position is that gods are a product of the imaginations of sentient beings that inhabit this universe. An inhabitant of this universe would create a god that is consistent with this universe. The fact that the designer god is consistent with this universe supports my position that gods are made up.

​

{AbE}Oh, and it's manifestly true that you're not just saying that the big bang is consistent with your idea of god. The very title of this thread, "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God," is a much stronger claim than mere consistency.Yes, I can conceive of a universe which would not be consistent with a creator God or Designer. It would be the static state universe, the former cosmology which was in vogue during the 19th and early 20th centuries. If the universe was truly constant and unchanging, eternal and always existed, then there is no place for a creator or Designer. The fact the universe came into existence is, by itself, support for the activity of a creator God. Is it proof? No.Regarding your question if my goal is to show compatibility with a creator or support for a creator, the answer is both. In my first post, I was focusing on compatibility. In my second General Post, Message 49, I provide some additional facts about the science of the big bang which provides greater support for the work of a creator God or Designer of the universe.The better you understand the science, the more clearly you will see the evidence for design.

Sorry but Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. In fact most chapters of Club Christian understand that Evolution is a fact and the the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation so far for the diversity of life that is seen.In the words of the Clergy Project:

quote:

---

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

---

Assume away. As for Paul being wrong, I'd like to have examples as well. I have an early morning and have to go, but I wish you well. I will leave you with some examples as they were explained to me... I am, as I've said, no scientist...just someone who has recently become really fascinated by all this and can't seem to get over it. If any of the following is incorrect or incomplete, or if I've been misusing the term "fine tuning," I apologize....I just copied it from where I read it. There were more examples, but I didn't bother to copy and paste them as well since I doubt it will change your opinion. Please feel free to fact check me as I have not had the time and took these at face value.Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

Agree to disagree. With you, and with most of the Christians who have abandoned the young earth theory as if it is something to be ashamed of. I wish you well, but have an early morning tomorrow and need to make my exit.

Also, I can't help but think: you want me to present natural evidence for supernatural causes, but anything I do present is automatically inadmissible; I am automatically wrong because you have already decided you will only believe in the natural...for which it is naturally much easier to present natural evidence. I would dare to say that the supernatural does not have to prove itself in a realm that it, by definition, supercedes...and yet there is evidence. As if someone wanted there to be. I respectfully still disagree with you. Good night.

That is a loaded question - which is naughty of you.
Evolutionists have NOT decided that god doesn't exist.
This is obvious by the massive amounts of theists who support the Theory of Evolution.
But you confusion about what 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' means is not the topic.Instead, what you need to do is support your assertions instead of criticising random subjects like evolution.
You also need to stop replying on Arguments from Authority, Arguments from Popularity and all the other logical fallacies you are using.
You would move this discussion a lot further forward is you back up your claims with evidence.If you want to claim that you are not a scientist and that you don't know the answers - then that is fine.
But then you shouldn't be making claims like "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God " - you should be asking questions.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

{baseless assertion}
{proof by assertion}
{brown-nosing}
{appeal to authority} {"He won an award!"}
{quote-mine} {quote-mine} {quote-mine}
{appeal to authority} {appeal to popularity} {"He won two awards!!!"}
{quote-mine} {quote-mine}
{baseless assertions}
{"He won an award!"}
{quote-mine}
{"Look at the pretty pictures!"}
{baseless assertion} {quote-mine}
{wishful thinking} {baseless assertion} {demonizing the opposition}
{non-sequitur}Anyone can do what you did in mischaracterizing my argument. Let me pick just the example of your charge of quote mining and appeal to authority.Do you honestly expect me to think you would present an argument without quoting any support for your statements? Part of the reason people have a wrong view of the big bang is because they do not understand the science. So I quote from famous and Nobel Prize winning physicists to explain the standard cosmology and you claim I am quote mining. That's just ridiculous! Either you don't know what quote mining means or you have no inclination to interact with data and logic which is contrary to your world view. Which is it?

It is.It is contradicted by massive amounts of evidence and supported only by an old tribal myth.And young earth is not a theory. That term has a very specific meaning in science. (See the definitions below.)Young earth is a religious belief. That means it does not need evidence, but is held as true no matter what.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that biologists are all atheists. This is wrong. You also seem to be laboring under the misconception that transitional intermediates are the sine qua non of the Theory of Evolution. This is also wrong.Darwin himself was a devout Christian and, like most scientists of the time, believed the bible provided an accurate natural history of the Earth. In fact, before his voyage on the Beagle, he believed that adaptation of species was evidence of design. It wasn't until after his voyage that he began to doubt the scientific accuracy of the bible. It was not until after years of study and comparing the concept of design with the evidence of the real world that he developed his theory of evolution.Like a true scientist, the evidence informed his conclusions rather than they reverse.I suspect that like most creos who come here, you've heard various stories about Darwin and science in general from various sources that are
at best ill-informed and at worst outright lies. You will find that there are many people here who have studied these things for years. This study has included extensive readings in science as well as reading what creationists and cdesign proponentsists have written. I suspect I know considerably more about creo ideas than you do. Your ignorance of the history of science rivals your apparent ignorance about science itself.

Perhaps you can explain why those who believed in the steady state universe also believed in the christian god and believed he created it. I'm quite confident that I understand the science considerably better than you do.

Since you are such a fan of Paul Davies (link):

quote:

---

So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life
requires. Such fine-tuning is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for biogenesis.

---

(But I expect that you will no longer agree with Paul Davies' authoritative arguments.)You will find on further reading that 'fine tuning' does not give you the support you think it does (unless you only read creationist sites).Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It's expected here that when you cut and paste information from another source that you indicate in some way that it's quoted from somewhere else and that you credit that source somewhere in your post. Failure to do so is called plagiarism.Since the post I am responding to came about 10 minutes after your previous post in this thread, I find it very unlikely that you wrote it yourself.Please keep this in mind in the future.