Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?

Danwood wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Danwood wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Danwood wrote:

[snip]


[snip]


"Fine-tuning" is not a discovery. It's an assertion.

snip]
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".

Why would these not be the only possible laws?
What are you talking about?
You _must_ realize that chaotic, random, unguided forces would
result in disorder, disarranged, unpredictable outcomes. Consequently,
the cosmological constants could have burst forth at the moments of
the Big Bang with _any_ values or any set of values in place, including
the actual values science discovered which under girds our universe.

We've been through this before. You have no reason to believe anything of the sort. Using descriptive words like "chaotic" is not an argument, nor can it give you information about processes you don't already have. You are merely assuming, by the use of the word "chaotic", a particular model of variable constants. Let me remind you of this analogy: an infinitely extended, one-inch-wide ribbon. Consider a randomly sized patch on this ribbon. It can have a length of any value between zero and infinity. It can have a width of any value between zero and one inch. But its thickness will always be zero. Sometimes randomness can produce constrained values; sometimes only single values. And you don't even know the number of dimensions in the ribbon, much less any of its dimensions.

Let me remind you of what you do know: the universe has various constants with particular values, and these happen to allow for life. That's it.

You are entitled to your
baseless opinion too. And of course a superintelligence is not an
explanation, but a substitute for an explanation.

Not if evidence presets a super-intellect as the best and most
logical explanation for what science discovered.

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.

As usual, you retreat from hypotheticals and refuse to discuss them,
except for the hypothetical you happen to prefer, that the universal
constants could have been different. The universe is supposedly
fine-tuned, yet you refuse to discuss the ways in which it isn't fine-tuned.

What is the logic in discussing some hypothetical point in lieu of
real world discoveries.

If we don't discuss hypotheticals, your whole idea of fine-tuning disappears.

Who is retreating? I mentioned the Cheshire Cat as a corollary to your
refusal to face reality. You would rather discuss some hypothetical
make believe possibilities

You are retreating. You won't discuss any hypothetical possibilities other than the ones you prefer (infinitely many possible values for universal constants), and you won't even admit those are hypothetical.

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. 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".

No, *you* would expect this. But you have no justification for that
expectation.
>
You've refused to explain how chaotic turbulent conditions at the Big Bang could have brought about anything but chaotic and turbulences results, not the logical and predictability scientist have found.

You are merely using buzzwords as arguments here. That's not logical at all. "Chaotic turbulent conditions" is your description, not mine or any cosmologists'.

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.

So?

These test results proves the points that I have been discussing.

How so? Once again, all you know is that there are certain constants. You have no way of knowing that they could have been different. The fact that they are unchanged from the beginning is hardly an argument that they could have been different.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... If the scientists in question have arguments based on ... No one has given any reason to think that the laws of physics were ... of the origin of the Universe back _to_ Planck time. ... a hot "big bang". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense ... science has unknowns. ... the big bang wasn't an 'explosion into space', ... We know several fundamental physical laws, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... So you have no argument other than that you believe certain scientists ... No one has given any reason to think that the laws of physics were ... of the origin of the Universe back _to_ Planck time. ... a hot "big bang". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origins and Mental Activity
    ... activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence. ... elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen ... throughout the universe, and in great quantity. ... will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, ...
    (talk.origins)