It seems to me that the earth, the universe for that matter, is simply too fine tuned to have been a result of random processes. There are as many as 30 physical/cosmological processes that require precise calibration in order to produce a life sustaining universe. The most intriguing to me is the cosmoligical constant, which is part of Einstein's equation for General Relativity, and could have any value, positive or negative. Nobel winning atheist Steven Weinberg stated that from first principles it would be very large. If large and positive, it would act as a repulsive force and prevent matter from clumping. If large and negative, it would act as an attractive force, which would immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to collapse. Yet, astonishingly it is quite small, smaller then would have been guessed from first principles. When Robin Collins was asked how precise it was he replied " well there's no way we can really comprehend it. The fine-tuning has conservatively been estimated to be at least one part in a hundre million billion billion billion billion billion. That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes." He equated it with throwing a dart at random toward Earth from out in space and hitting a bullseye that's one trilliont of a trillionth of an inch in diameter. How do evolutionists contend with this? Now while not conclusive for design, it does throw into question how random processes could have produced such a precise system.
This message has been edited by jjburklo, 11-16-2004 12:55 AM
™ Version 4.2