Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?

John Harshman wrote:
Danwood wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Danwood wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


Danwood wrote:



John Harshman wrote:
I'm back today, I spent the holidays with my family in PA.
I Hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and will have a
happy New Year.

I did, and hope to.

[snip]

"Fine-tuning" is not a discovery. It's an assertion. And I can't argue
with anyone except people who post here. If you have no argument, that's
fine. But saying that someone else believes something, even if it's true
that they believe it, is no argument.
This "belief" in a "fine tuned universe", is accepted by some eminence
scientist. Since I am not a scientist, and have no access to the
Hubble telescope etc I have no grounds to reject their position.
After much study, I accept their argument as based on valid
observations. Unless you can show me where they are wrong, At this
time I have no reason to change my views.
I realize I cannot change yours, but this has an extremely low priority
in the scheme of things.

So you have no argument other than that you believe certain scientists
because they're eminent. Like I said, if you have no argument, I can't
argue against it. If the scientists in question have arguments based on
observations, I would like to know what they are.

there to have been "fortunate occurrences" or "adjustments" there must
have been other possibilities. Do you or Hoyle have any evidence that
there were other possibilities?

Hoyle could not believe this was an accident, but he was not happy
about it.
You understand that "accident" also assumes there are other
possibilities. What evidence do you have that there are other possibilities?
No one has given any reason to think that the laws of physics were
predetermined or destined or had to have the necessary values for the
universe to develop or life to arise.
Sorry, sentence too convoluted for interpretation.
Okay, permit me to revise and extend my statement. Modern laws of
physics cannot be applied beyond 10^-43 seconds after the big bang
Yet, scientist use the known laws of physics to push our understanding
of the origin of the Universe back _to_ Planck time. If a super-intelligence is ruled out, how then did these values arise?
_What_ remains to bring about the logic and mathematical order that
underlies our universe: chance, random unguided actions or What?

I don't know, of course. But one logical possibility is that if a
universe is going to arise, there's only one way for it to happen, and
so the universe that arose had the laws it does because those are the
only possible laws.
>
But that still doesn't explain anything. Why would these be the only possible laws. Without a super-intelligence (to borrow Fred Hoyles' nomenclature) what is left is random, capricious events starting with
a hot "big bang". You are entitled to your opinion, but it is baseless.


If a superintelligence was responsible, it seems a curiously limited
superintelligence, since a universe that is much more hospitable to life
is imaginable.
>
One can always ask such questions. Other such questions is, why would a benevolent creator institute aging and death. Why is our earth such a small part in a vast galaxy when our ever increasing population need
more living space? Why are natural resources so limited when when increasing populations put ever greater demands on the dwindling resources we have?
I think it's far better to try explaining the reality we observe rather insisting that the Cheshire Cat in "Alice in "Wonderland" could not have been anything but a Cheshire Cat.
>
The one we have may be the most hospitable if you limit
the capabilities of this superintelligence to manipulating the values of
a few chosen parameters before a big bang.
>
I

But that seems an odd
limitation for a superintelligence. And of course it assumes that those
parameters, but no others, were variable. Remember the universe machine
with the knobs? Who made the machine?

At the moment of the Big Bang the parameters must have been shifting variable, spasmodic and unstable. One would expect this without a
"guiding hand". But, with the Big Bang and at Planck Time the variables became set, constant, immutable and _predictable_. Evidence of this is the mathematical laws which under girds our universe, and allows scientist by appealing to these laws to push our understanding of the origin of the Cosmo back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. The results have been tested and proven out by creating conditions in cyclotrons approaching those near the B.B. But due to fact that immense heat and infinite density (which existed at the moment of the Big Bang) cannot be recreated on earth, scientist can push no further back than Planck Time.


Dan Wood


.

Relevant Pages
Loading