When Will Evolutionists Confess Their...

Since: May 14

Europe

#489 Jun 5, 2014
[QUOTE ] When we find 'fine tuning', that typically means there is a physical process we didn't previously know about that is forcing that fine tuning to be the case. Either that, or there is more variance in the actual universe than we originally thought and other regions are not so finely tuned.
.[/QUOTE] Thank you very much. So you ve found fine tuning and now the problem is how to explain it. And you dont even have a straightforward explanation coz it seems you are proposing two theories.Go on, am all ears.But am bothered, why did you allow us all to argue fot so long when your friends disagreed with all suggestions of any fine tuning in the universe. All a same, no hard feelings. Now what sayest the two theories?

Since: May 14

Europe

#490 Jun 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So why'd you have to say it twice?(shrug)
<quoted text>
Of course it's a biased thread. Creationists are biased towards their beliefs, the rest of us are biased towards evidence. That's how this works. Would'a thought you'd have learned this by now.
Am begining to be a fan of yours. Hound him out of town.

Since: May 14

Europe

#491 Jun 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, is that a problem? Sorry.
It's just that we take ALL of reality into account. Not just one small situation which wasn't even anything to do with the global flood in the first place.
We ask you for evidence of a global flood and you give us Mt St Helens, which was a different event altogether. Why can't you just give us evidence of a global flood?
I'll tell you why - the evidence is INVISIBLE.
Some chap asked why we fight science and i used the mt everest clam shells to show how these fights erupt. Next i got long lectures on land rock and fossil formation to which i responded with the "abrupt land and rock formation" comment. You know there was an insinuation that all such formations take millions of years so i sought to correct this generalized statement.Poor me.In my ensuing silence over this issue(of which i know very little) i received long lessons and a few expletives topped up. I am more knowledgeable now.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#492 Jun 5, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
There is a disturbing tendency here and all over it seems - to ASSUME scientists made stuff up out of thin air unless the actual evidence and reasoning is presented right here. People with no scientific background, demanding 30 second soundbite explanations...and refusing to LOOK IT UP for themselves.
Religion has mobilised a kind of ad hominem against scientists themselves and their motives, a last ditch attempt to discredit the man when they cannot discredit the findings they do not like.
Its absurd and ignorant. And childish.
It is indeed a disturbing tendency.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has made a compelling video on it: http://youtu.be/2n4THaJ38F8... .

It is my opinion that when creationism lays its hands on the school system, the long term effects will be disastrous.

Biologist Jerry Coyne has just hit the problem right into its core: http://youtu.be/CW9G2YVtBYc... .
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#493 Jun 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Some chap asked why we fight science and i used the mt everest clam shells to show how these fights erupt. Next i got long lectures on land rock and fossil formation to which i responded with the "abrupt land and rock formation" comment. You know there was an insinuation that all such formations take millions of years so i sought to correct this generalized statement.Poor me.In my ensuing silence over this issue(of which i know very little) i received long lessons and a few expletives topped up. I am more knowledgeable now.
If you want to know what to write when you are completely debunked to feign there is still something to be told, read the quote above.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#494 Jun 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you very much. So you ve found fine tuning and now the problem is how to explain it. And you dont even have a straightforward explanation coz it seems you are proposing two theories.Go on, am all ears.But am bothered, why did you allow us all to argue fot so long when your friends disagreed with all suggestions of any fine tuning in the universe. All a same, no hard feelings. Now what sayest the two theories?
It depends on which 'fine tuning' situation you are asking about. In regards to the 'fine tuning' of the expansion rate, the inflationary scenario explains it via a very early stage of hyper-expansion That leads to a spatially 'flat' universe (which in turn means a very particular rate of expansion). Even with widely different initial conditions, the same end result is found, so no 'fine tuning' is required.

The problem is, to some extent. in the definition of the term 'fine tuning'. It generally means that a small region of parameter space is appropriate for a particular situation. So, slightly different values for the expansion rate would lead to either a universe that didn't last as long as it does (positive spatial curvature) or that expands so fast that no stars form (negative spatial curvature). But what is found is that the limited range of the parameter are actually determined by deeper laws that we weren't aware of at the beginning of our investigations.

Another situation where 'fine tuning' is often discussed is things like the relative strengths of the various basic forces. So, for example, if electromagnetism and the weak force were slightly different in their relative strengths, the available elements might be very different: a stable di-proton is an example. the question is then whether life *could* evolve in such alternative universes. And the answer is quite simply that we don't know. It would have to be rather different from us, but the inherent complexity from the basic laws doesn't seem to exclude the possibility.

Finally, in a multiverse scenario or even a universe with differing values of the 'constants' in different locations (both are reasonable within a quantum cosmology situation), there may well be regions where there is no life because the values of the basic constants are different. But we see *this* part of the universe because we *are* alive and have to be in regions where the constants allow for life to arise.

Since: May 14

Europe

#495 Jun 6, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
..... the inflationary scenario explains it via a very early stage of hyper-expansion That leads to a spatially 'flat' universe (which in turn means a very particular rate of expansion).
Was this the only possibility to the expansion rate ?
So, slightly different values for the expansion rate would lead to either a universe that didn't last as long as it does (positive spatial curvature) or that expands so fast that no stars form (negative spatial curvature)..
meaning a variety of values of which only a small portion could have produced what we observe in our universe today
But what is found is that the limited range of the parameter are actually determined by deeper laws that we weren't aware of at the beginning of our investigations.
Deeper laws ? Then why do we have physicists still rooting for fine tuning, dont they know of these deep laws ?
for example, if electromagnetism and the weak force were slightly different in their relative strengths, the available elements might be very different:
yes, meaning a huge range of posibilities
a stable di-proton is an example. the question is then whether life *could* evolve in such alternative universes.
no ,the question is why didnt it expand that way ? i mean the wrong way.....
And the answer is quite simply that we don't know.
neither do we.
Finally, in a multiverse scenario
hey !! we throw this one out coz its not unlike saying God did it, for it is not observable or testable. Or is it ?
or even a universe with differing values of the 'constants' in different locations (both are reasonable within a quantum cosmology situation), there may well be regions where there is no life because the values of the basic constants are different.
neither observable nor testable, or is it ?
But we see *this* part of the universe because we *are* alive and have to be in regions where the constants allow for life to arise.
there is no other part. Conclusion.....? on those two aspects the universe displays fine tuning.

Since: May 14

Europe

#496 Jun 6, 2014
Look inside polymaths quote (italics) in my reply up there. Ive raised some issues and they too are italicized.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#497 Jun 6, 2014
Deeper laws ? Then why do we have physicists still rooting for fine tuning, dont they know of these deep laws ?
Well, in the case of inflation, because they haven't been reading the cosmology literature recently. Care to give some names so I can look them up and see what they have said?
there is no other part. Conclusion.....? on those two aspects the universe displays fine tuning.
Given that the universe is close to being flat, there is definitely much more space that what we see in the observable universe (which is limited to the places that light can get to us from since the start). So, yes, there are definitely 'other parts'. Whether the 'constants' are different in other parts is another matter.
no ,the question is why didnt it expand that way ? i mean the wrong way....
Well, I wasn't talking about expansion rate there. I was talking about relative strengths of a couple of the fundamental forces. And if the ratio between their strengths was different, then the universe would be different. Not wrong, just different.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#498 Jun 6, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Am begining to be a fan of yours. Hound him out of town.
Perish the thought. Everyone chooses to be here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#499 Jun 6, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Some chap asked why we fight science and i used the mt everest clam shells to show how these fights erupt. Next i got long lectures on land rock and fossil formation to which i responded with the "abrupt land and rock formation" comment. You know there was an insinuation that all such formations take millions of years so i sought to correct this generalized statement.Poor me.In my ensuing silence over this issue(of which i know very little) i received long lessons and a few expletives topped up. I am more knowledgeable now.
Then youn understand why there couldn't be a flood on a global scale?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#500 Jun 6, 2014
hey !! we throw this one out coz its not unlike saying God did it, for it is not observable or testable. Or is it ?
This was in regards to multiverse interpretations. Yes, aspects of it *are* testable. For example, such scenarios come very naturally from all of the quantum theories of gravity we have. Those can be tested (at least eventually) and we can decide which of the possibilities is correct. Also, in many of them the presence of other universes in the multiverse *can* be detected by gravitational effects in our universe. There has already been one proposal (refuted afterwards) to exactly that point.

So, we have a variety of different possibilities of fine tuning:

1. That some deeper aspects are pushing things to the observed values.

2. That different regions of our universe have different values. If the universe is infinite in extent, then *some* locations will have the combinations we see.

3. Multiverse scenarios, which are natural consequences of quantum gravity, with different universes having different values and ours just happens to be the one with the values we see.

All of these are consistent with what we know and require no fundamentally new things (although possibly different physical laws--to be determined).

You, on the other hand, propose an intelligence that decided on the particular values we see. No mechanism is given for how that choice can be made, no other evidence is given for the existence of that intelligence, no description is given of the laws governing that intelligence, nothing that can actually be tested is proposed at all.

Sorry, it simply doesn't work like that.

For example, we could propose that there is a multiverse and that a race of intelligent super-beings lives in that multiverse and has learned how to make universes. We can also imagine that a project in their art classes is to make such universes. Now, remember that when cosmologists say 'universe' they mean both the spatial and the temporal aspects. So, some teenager makes her art project and forgets about it, leaving it in the school closet. We, who are in that universe, won't even see any different because time is *in* our universe.

So, is this a viable scenario for you? Why or why not?

Since: May 14

Europe

#501 Jun 6, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This was in regards to multiverse interpretations. Yes, aspects of it *are* testable. For example, such scenarios come very naturally from all of the quantum theories of gravity we have. Those can be tested (at least eventually) and we can decide which of the possibilities is correct. Also, in many of them the presence of other universes in the multiverse *can* be detected by gravitational effects in our universe.......
Writting in Nature, Albert Einstein professor of science Paul Steinhardt says that serious flaws in the analysis (of multiverse gravitational waves) have been revealed that transform the detection (of these waves) into no detection , adding that the inflationary paradigm which multiverse theory comes from "is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless." Didnt i tell you to throw it out ? Now look how messy its becoming .

Since: May 14

Europe

#502 Jun 6, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

So, is this a viable scenario for you? Why or why not?

NO ! neither science nor the bible supports it.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#504 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text>
NO ! neither science nor the bible supports it.
Look around. You can find anyone to support or not support any cause. You think too much which in turn causes you more confusion. The bible and science will never support the same thing. WooHoo that was a simple answer.

Since: May 14

Europe

#505 Jun 7, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Look around. You can find anyone to support or not support any cause. You think too much which in turn causes you more confusion. The bible and science will never support the same thing. WooHoo that was a simple answer.
With all due respect , Paul Steinhardt is not any one.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#506 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> With all due respect , Paul Steinhardt is not any one.
With all due respect he is just anyone to some and he maybe everything to others.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#507 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text>
Writting in Nature, Albert Einstein professor of science Paul Steinhardt says that serious flaws in the analysis (of multiverse gravitational waves) have been revealed that transform the detection (of these waves) into no detection , adding that the inflationary paradigm which multiverse theory comes from "is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless." Didnt i tell you to throw it out ? Now look how messy its becoming .
Not at all. This is how science is done: someone makes and observation and then people attempt to explain it in the best way. We then test the new explanations against new observations. Until enough evidence is in to make a conclusive determination, there will be heated debate. In the case of the multiverse 'observation', there is a lot that could go wrong with the observation itself and in its interpretation. Let's see what happen in the next decade or so before making a conclusion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#508 Jun 7, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text>
Writting in Nature, Albert Einstein professor of science Paul Steinhardt says that serious flaws in the analysis (of multiverse gravitational waves) have been revealed that transform the detection (of these waves) into no detection , adding that the inflationary paradigm which multiverse theory comes from "is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless." Didnt i tell you to throw it out ? Now look how messy its becoming .
Actually, the inflationary paradigm doesn't require a multiverse. And yes, it *is* testable in a number of different ways. We still have to do many of the required tests (they are technically difficult), but the basic idea is testable.

For multiverses, there may or may not be testability depending on the specifics of the theory. However, the overall theory is generally still testable.

Since: May 14

South Africa

#509 Jun 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. This is how science is done: someone makes and observation and then people attempt to explain it in the best way. We then test the new explanations against new observations. Until enough evidence is in to make a conclusive determination, there will be heated debate. In the case of the multiverse 'observation', there is a lot that could go wrong with the observation itself and in its interpretation. Let's see what happen in the next decade or so before making a conclusion.
And in tandem with your chronology of how science is done, people observed great order (read fine tuning) in the universe, and because some of them disliked the idea of God, they set out to explain this observation by hypothesising multiverses and another theory that speaks of a bouncing universe. The bounce has long been discredited so our friends are left with the multiverse yarn to spin. You suggest we wait 10 yrs , i agree. With an assurance to you they wont get nothing in 100 yrs.
N.B. Dont say "multiverse observation ", say multiverse hypothesis.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min DanFromSmithville 35,464
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min DanFromSmithville 199,525
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 26 min Reason Personified 14,986
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 2 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 3 hr Creationtruth 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Kenedy njoroge 151,365
My Story Part 1 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web