Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman


The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

Hoviind (both of them) academically speaking and as a philosopher academically is not considered a good debater or philosopher. Even by his academic Christian peers. That is based on his ability to not produce logical fallacies or create a convincing arguement.

If you like his content that's perfectly reasonable.

Evolution has lots of emperical evidence. It just depends on if you agree with the definition of any of those things. As far as I know the allegory nature of Genesis was always present. After St Basil in particular it became the norm to see Genesis as allegory as well as when Talmumd was created.

Well in my opinion, as irrelevant as it is, I consider Hovind an excellent teacher and debater,

I have seen him debate countless scientists, lecturers often a pair or three at a time and destroy their argument.
Not only does he destroy their argument, he teaches the audience a different view
If you think his arguments are not up to your spec, great, I do.
I recommend anyone wanting to see a Christian apologist for creation, then watch him

I don't think it's your position to decide for others, let them watch and decide for themselves

If you want to accept what science has to offer, that's great

Me, I don't see it, that simple

If people want to argue it's very important to see both sides of the argument, don't deny them that.

Your not understanding the difference of opinion vs using the rules set up for formal debates.

I said the teaching the countent if you are moved by it is a seperate issue to actually "destroying arguements". Philosophy has set up rules for debate and definitions of fallacy. Hovind (both Kent and Eric ) are notorious for not following or adhereing to this method. It's essentially like saying I destroyed the other team even though I fouled out of the game and lost. He agrees to the rules before the debate. He needs to be held to their standards.

This is why I said William Lane Craig also a Christian apologist is such a good debater and philospher. He also makes people very mad because the consusus of his peers is that he wins nearly all his debates. Thats from both sides of the aisle.

Also Christian apologetics is generally regarded as an academic area. The Hovinds are not apologists by definition. Kent is also a criminal.

Kent is a criminal, let's be honest, who isn't.
Taken by the tax man while plenty of those in ministry are unmolested by the taxman, strange?
Politicians with offshore accounts, untouched by the taxman?
Yeah he is a criminal, what's the issue? Does that make he's argument against evolution weaker?

Look, Khrazee asked for someone who can argue for creation, I suggested Hovind, I understand you don't like him, his debating style.
Irrespective, Hovind has a good argument and is easily accessible.
Sorry my choice offends you

I still recommend Hovind, I get it, you disagree
Ignore my choice for yourself, cool.

If anyone else wants to see a good apologists for creation, I recommend searching YouTube for Kent Hovind

It's your choice

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman


The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

Hoviind (both of them) academically speaking and as a philosopher academically is not considered a good debater or philosopher. Even by his academic Christian peers. That is based on his ability to not produce logical fallacies or create a convincing arguement.

If you like his content that's perfectly reasonable.

Evolution has lots of emperical evidence. It just depends on if you agree with the definition of any of those things. As far as I know the allegory nature of Genesis was always present. After St Basil in particular it became the norm to see Genesis as allegory as well as when Talmumd was created.

Well in my opinion, as irrelevant as it is, I consider Hovind an excellent teacher and debater,

I have seen him debate countless scientists, lecturers often a pair or three at a time and destroy their argument.
Not only does he destroy their argument, he teaches the audience a different view
If you think his arguments are not up to your spec, great, I do.
I recommend anyone wanting to see a Christian apologist for creation, then watch him

I don't think it's your position to decide for others, let them watch and decide for themselves

If you want to accept what science has to offer, that's great

Me, I don't see it, that simple

If people want to argue it's very important to see both sides of the argument, don't deny them that.

Your not understanding the difference of opinion vs using the rules set up for formal debates.

I said the teaching the countent if you are moved by it is a seperate issue to actually "destroying arguements". Philosophy has set up rules for debate and definitions of fallacy. Hovind (both Kent and Eric ) are notorious for not following or adhereing to this method. It's essentially like saying I destroyed the other team even though I fouled out of the game and lost. He agrees to the rules before the debate. He needs to be held to their standards.

This is why I said William Lane Craig also a Christian apologist is such a good debater and philospher. He also makes people very mad because the consusus of his peers is that he wins nearly all his debates. Thats from both sides of the aisle.

Also Christian apologetics is generally regarded as an academic area. The Hovinds are not apologists by definition. Kent is also a criminal.

Kent is a criminal, let's be honest, who isn't.
Taken by the tax man while plenty of those in ministry are unmolested by the taxman, strange?
Politicians with offshore accounts, untouched by the taxman?
Yeah he is a criminal, what's the issue? Does that make he's argument against evolution weaker?

Look, Khrazee asked for someone who can argue for creation, I suggested Hovind, I understand you don't like him, his debating style.
Irrespective, Hovind has a good argument and is easily accessible.
Sorry my choice offends you

I still recommend Hovind, I get it, you disagree
Ignore my choice for yourself, cool.

If anyone else wants to see a good apologists for creation, I recommend searching YouTube for Kent Hovind

It's your choice

Again one more time. My opinion is irrelevant.
This is the opinion of his peers in philosophy (where debating takes place).

He is also not a Christian apologist.

He was also arrested for assault.

I am.not argueing about his content. I am argueing that he is by definition a bad debater when reviewed by his philosophy and academic Christian apologist peers.

You may like a specific team but that doesn't mean that don't loose. It actually has nothing to do with preferences. This is judgement in the technical aspect of debating not content.

If you want to see a master debater Christian apologist peer reviewed and respected by his peers who argue for God visit WLC.

Creation has absolutely no proof in terms of its modern approach to thinking Genesis is literal. People haven't interpreted the bible thatbway for about 1500 years. The big bang was made by a Jesuit priest. Of coarse if you follow Hovind you don't care much for Jesuits.

Regardless my arguement is not opinion it's based on understanding the rules of debate.

I don't like WLCraig one bit either. But I am forced to respect him as a philosopher because he is.

a reply to: luthier

You don't seem to be even close to understanding what I am talking about. I am truly sorry there is such a large disconnect.

I haven't offered any 'what ifs'. I don't understand where you are getting that from in my discussion. Supports of the 'fine tuned universe' view do indeed explain the problem by presenting 'what-if' arguments, and indeed your challenges are designed to get me to somehow reject those arguments. One of their explanations is based on multi-verses. But I have not used either 'what-if' or multiverse to support my argument. It just isn't there.

Your challenges are simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I know that 'if' fundamental constants are changed then life changes or disappears. That is not in dispute. Experiments are not necessary to prove or refute the what-if scenarios. I am not rejecting science.

The multiverse question is likewise irrelevant to my view. If multiverses exist, then sure, there will be a lot of universes where life as we know it cannot exist, and at least one where it does (this one). That is also not in dispute. My rejection of 'fine tune' does not depend on either the existence or non-existence of multiverses. It is simply not part of my argument.

The main difficulty, I think is that this is not a scientific debate; this is a philosophical debate. You cannot turn a philosophical debate into a scientific debate, they are two entirely different paradigms.

You say essentially: the universe is set up as it is so that life as we know it can exist. Within your view, you can say "see I can prove it, I'll run an experiment to show that life could not exist if we change this constant or that constant".

I say the exact opposite: life as we know it exists because the universe is set up as it is. The existence of the universe is a given. The life that is found in this universe is perfectly fitted to the universe it finds itself in. In my view there is no scientific experiment that makes sense because there is nothing to prove one way or the other.

Douglas Adams puddle fits the hole, the hole was not fine tuned for the puddle.

I repeat, in the end, this isn't a scientific question, it is one of philosophy. There is no scientific experiment that can decide between two two philosophical outlooks.

Good Thread OP. That's the way you start a discussion.

1. Big Bang. Makes no sense, unless you look at the underlying cause. I can buy a big bang theory and expanding universe etc, but my mind instantly goes to what caused the big bang. You can't have that theory and leave it at that, without a solid discussion of what caused it and what proceeded it.

2. Creationism. All Creationism threads boil themselves down to the core position of Biblical Genesis, usually and leave out all other discussions of creationism. What if you are not a Christian? What if you think Genesis is crap, yet still believe in a God bringing our universe into being.

3. Evolution debunking. We have real fossil evidence of some type of evolution. It's not a bad theory. The debunking of evolution, in general discussions, is usually just one or two points, that really don't debunk anything, but could bring forth a really good discussion. Why did we find THOSE fossils THERE? Why haven't we SEEN this here? Etc.

a reply to: rnaa

Again I have to disagree. It is irrelevant if you use so or because. The observation that the universe appears fine tuned for life is about the building blocks. Not about life. The puddle nor the contents can exist without the constants. These are extremely small fractional differences that create absolute chaos if out of Ballance. Like Suns don't form. Or planets.

To theriozr other universes or forms of life exist is a big what if. You used this in your arguement and then changed the rules.

Can you give any examples of how another form of life would exist based on what we know of physics or even theoretical physics?

I do understand your arguement. I am aware of it and am trying to find a way to get you to understand fine tuning better. In particular the already argued points that have been largely discredited in peer review. Thats by actual astrophysicists. I am not argueing in anyway the philosophical metaphysical aspect of fine tuning. I am argueing it's an observation that it (currently) appears that way. It also is certainly not in anyway limited to the belief of stoned college sophomores. Thats completely crass and an out right lie.

These are scientific models tested in simulations. That is not philosophy. It's useing emperical evidence and trying to replicate life from purely random chance.

Not philosophy.

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding fine tuning and a couple dozen argueing against it.

At best an agnostic attitude is understandable but creating an arguement saying its junk science or purely philosophy is just disengenius.

originally posted by: amazing
Good Thread OP. That's the way you start a discussion.

1. Big Bang. Makes no sense, unless you look at the underlying cause. I can buy a big bang theory and expanding universe etc, but my mind instantly goes to what caused the big bang. You can't have that theory and leave it at that, without a solid discussion of what caused it and what proceeded it.

2. Creationism. All Creationism threads boil themselves down to the core position of Biblical Genesis, usually and leave out all other discussions of creationism. What if you are not a Christian? What if you think Genesis is crap, yet still believe in a God bringing our universe into being.

3. Evolution debunking. We have real fossil evidence of some type of evolution. It's not a bad theory. The debunking of evolution, in general discussions, is usually just one or two points, that really don't debunk anything, but could bring forth a really good discussion. Why did we find THOSE fossils THERE? Why haven't we SEEN this here? Etc.

You don't even need to think Genesis is bunk. Just that it's allegory or that the creation days were not actual 24 hour days. George Laimatre was a priest and he still came up with the big bang. Mendel was a monk and he created genetics.

I too think about the "prime mover" before the big bang. Or is a loop? How many big bangs are there (big squeezes)? Does something have to be a necessary being outside of time to avoid infinite regress?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Not futile, you just need to work out what flavour of pre-christian faith you are after, and is it a revival (images over history) or reconstruction (history, syncronosity, and a large dose of Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG). For me I focus on my Gaelic ancestors. Tell you what if you are interested, message me and I will point you at some resources to poke around in. Its a rabbit hole

Please don't take the "this seems like a set up" comment as an attack, but this particular forum in ATS is full of click bait, and such threads. Its not quite as bad as the 9/11 one was but it does have people with axes to grind. So a hint for next time, try wording slightly differently, and see what you get It is hard to balance what you think, with what you are asking.

a reply to: luthier

The observation that the universe appears fine tuned for life is about the building blocks. Not about life. The puddle nor the contents can exist without the constants. These are extremely small fractional differences that create absolute chaos if out of Ballance. Like Suns don't form. Or planets.

In classical mechanics, some constants are approximations. They suit our world on the macroscopic scale - build a bridge, a building, etc.

General relativity, statistical mechanics and quantum field theory provide more accurate measurements - but our real time interface with the quantum world is nonexistent - if instruments didn't provide evidence that the quantum world existed, it would remain theoretical regardless how many double-slit experiments are done. Detection allowed for the development of super conducting magnets and now quantum computers, but we can never be part of that world in a real sense.

My point is that "fine tuning" may well be just a matter of perspective - what you see is what you get - and it may be all that you need. So perhaps the whole universe is NOT fine tuned for life - just that portion of it where we have to exist. Other worlds right here in our universe may exist even below the quantum world.

Arbitrageur posted this a while back - the paper is interesting because if the quantum world ignores the observer (us), maybe this universe that we live in is ignoring us too. Just like the particles that come into existence and then disappear, neither adding or subtracting from the total energy, maybe life is similar - here today, gone tomorrow!

Just a thought! Good conversation though - thought provoking.

Link to Arbitrageur's post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman


The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

Hoviind (both of them) academically speaking and as a philosopher academically is not considered a good debater or philosopher. Even by his academic Christian peers. That is based on his ability to not produce logical fallacies or create a convincing arguement.

If you like his content that's perfectly reasonable.

Evolution has lots of emperical evidence. It just depends on if you agree with the definition of any of those things. As far as I know the allegory nature of Genesis was always present. After St Basil in particular it became the norm to see Genesis as allegory as well as when Talmumd was created.

Well in my opinion, as irrelevant as it is, I consider Hovind an excellent teacher and debater,

I have seen him debate countless scientists, lecturers often a pair or three at a time and destroy their argument.
Not only does he destroy their argument, he teaches the audience a different view
If you think his arguments are not up to your spec, great, I do.
I recommend anyone wanting to see a Christian apologist for creation, then watch him

I don't think it's your position to decide for others, let them watch and decide for themselves

If you want to accept what science has to offer, that's great

Me, I don't see it, that simple

If people want to argue it's very important to see both sides of the argument, don't deny them that.

Your not understanding the difference of opinion vs using the rules set up for formal debates.

I said the teaching the countent if you are moved by it is a seperate issue to actually "destroying arguements". Philosophy has set up rules for debate and definitions of fallacy. Hovind (both Kent and Eric ) are notorious for not following or adhereing to this method. It's essentially like saying I destroyed the other team even though I fouled out of the game and lost. He agrees to the rules before the debate. He needs to be held to their standards.

This is why I said William Lane Craig also a Christian apologist is such a good debater and philospher. He also makes people very mad because the consusus of his peers is that he wins nearly all his debates. Thats from both sides of the aisle.

Also Christian apologetics is generally regarded as an academic area. The Hovinds are not apologists by definition. Kent is also a criminal.

Kent is a criminal, let's be honest, who isn't.
Taken by the tax man while plenty of those in ministry are unmolested by the taxman, strange?
Politicians with offshore accounts, untouched by the taxman?
Yeah he is a criminal, what's the issue? Does that make he's argument against evolution weaker?

Look, Khrazee asked for someone who can argue for creation, I suggested Hovind, I understand you don't like him, his debating style.
Irrespective, Hovind has a good argument and is easily accessible.
Sorry my choice offends you

I still recommend Hovind, I get it, you disagree
Ignore my choice for yourself, cool.

If anyone else wants to see a good apologists for creation, I recommend searching YouTube for Kent Hovind

It's your choice

Again one more time. My opinion is irrelevant.
This is the opinion of his peers in philosophy (where debating takes place).

He is also not a Christian apologist.

He was also arrested for assault.

I am.not argueing about his content. I am argueing that he is by definition a bad debater when reviewed by his philosophy and academic Christian apologist peers.

You may like a specific team but that doesn't mean that don't loose. It actually has nothing to do with preferences. This is judgement in the technical aspect of debating not content.

If you want to see a master debater Christian apologist peer reviewed and respected by his peers who argue for God visit WLC.

Creation has absolutely no proof in terms of its modern approach to thinking Genesis is literal. People haven't interpreted the bible thatbway for about 1500 years. The big bang was made by a Jesuit priest. Of coarse if you follow Hovind you don't care much for Jesuits.

Regardless my arguement is not opinion it's based on understanding the rules of debate.

I don't like WLCraig one bit either. But I am forced to respect him as a philosopher because he is.

I have been accused that I don't believe in science by evolutionists.
That's a blatant and ugly lie, the straw man, I tend to use that same blatant lie and straw man back at the atheists now, it's kind of true in a logical sort of way.

The truth is that I don't believe in the science used in evolution, I won't accept it, I am not interested in the guessing games.

Listening to you is similar, I am not interested, not interested in your, debating rules, argument over criminal assaults, apologists standards,in your Jesuit priests, WLCraig, Hovinds standings in peer circles and every other trivial issue you have

A question was asked who gave a good argument in favor of creation, I suggested Hovind

I still recommend Hovind, even based on the fact so many hate him, it is worth seeing why he is so detested in atheistic circles

Attacking the man and not the argument, where does that stand in debating rules Luthier.

I have yet to meet a good man, be him Christian, atheist, scholar or not.

Your point is taken, Hovind lost all the debates if that makes you happier, just won the moderated arguments by showing other people's ignorance to what they believed

a reply to: Raggedyman

Honestly I should apologise. I am really just argueing semantics and definitions. If you or anyone else resonate with a discussion that fine. I just wanted to point out in debates there are generally terms and rules when one does so in a forum or even a semi formal academic setting. He wasn't destroying people in debates. Thats really all I mean. If you start talking about theology and philosophy he isn't an academic.

Which is fine. You can teach people without being a good debater. It gets harder when you aren't humble enough to see your own fallacies. It helps people with larger egos to debate because you get knocked down if your way off base. You have to accept defeat when you lost by the rule set and what the debate set out to prove/disprove. This means going back thinking and working on your arguement to erase your falacies in thought.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

The observation that the universe appears fine tuned for life is about the building blocks. Not about life. The puddle nor the contents can exist without the constants. These are extremely small fractional differences that create absolute chaos if out of Ballance. Like Suns don't form. Or planets.

In classical mechanics, some constants are approximations. They suit our world on the macroscopic scale - build a bridge, a building, etc.

General relativity, statistical mechanics and quantum field theory provide more accurate measurements - but our real time interface with the quantum world is nonexistent - if instruments didn't provide evidence that the quantum world existed, it would remain theoretical regardless how many double-slit experiments are done. Detection allowed for the development of super conducting magnets and now quantum computers, but we can never be part of that world in a real sense.

My point is that "fine tuning" may well be just a matter of perspective - what you see is what you get - and it may be all that you need. So perhaps the whole universe is NOT fine tuned for life - just that portion of it where we have to exist. Other worlds right here in our universe may exist even below the quantum world.

Arbitrageur posted this a while back - the paper is interesting because if the quantum world ignores the observer (us), maybe this universe that we live in is ignoring us too. Just like the particles that come into existence and then disappear, neither adding or subtracting from the total energy, maybe life is similar - here today, gone tomorrow!

Just a thought! Good conversation though - thought provoking.

Link to Arbitrageur's post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very cool. I think it is quite possible it's perspective. I can definitely see this as a possibility. My arguement is currently it seems this way. It's not a sophmoric stoners concept. It's something scientists have studied and thought about and rune expirements to test theories on.

On a side note..
My quantum pseudoscience
This is where I start to link consciousness and dreaming imagination. It's interesting to think there could be an "akashic" record of sorts that exists and acts within the quantum state. Perhaps our mutual observations interacting throughout time helping evolve imagination (creating new ideas). Maybe how we end up with pyramids everywhere. Maybe it was simply a quantum entanglement consciousness like event maybe it exists outside if time? Or interacts with it?

Yet I still have a philosophical fascination with the teleological arguement. Not that I buy into it but i think about how it seems that way. Same with the first way. How did this whole observable (even with instruments) come to be and how could it not have had some basic laws set up to lead towards experience/observation.

The best argument against evolution is, if there's monkeys and men, where are all the life forms in between?

a reply to: luthier

I am aware of it and am trying to find a way to get you to understand fine tuning better.

Oh, I understand both sides of the question completely. It was a topic of discussion when I was in High School - 50 years ago. The guy that taught me cosmology at University is the guy that built the first large scale Multiple-Mirror Telescope - and yes he is an actual Astrophysicist/Cosmologist - and yes we had the discussion then as well.

This is not a new question in the philosophy of science, and it is addressed very early on and in depth. Active, productive Scientists hold both views on both sides; some even espousing both views at different points in their career. The 'tension' between the two views informs the directions research takes, even to the point of colleagues arguing the point and challenging each other to disprove or prove some esoteric mathematical result based on the worldview being challenged. It is part and parcel of how science is done.

Can you give any examples of how another form of life would exist based on what we know of physics or even theoretical physics?

I have no desire to do so; it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that 'life as we know it' exists BECAUSE the cosmos exists as we know it. It doesn't matter whether some other form of life exists in our cosmos, or even in some other cosmos.

Its the Douglas Adams puddle metaphor. Its also the crude Aussie rejoinder "if my Auntie had balls I'd have another Uncle". Well truth be told, your Auntie doesn't, and you don't.

These are scientific models tested in simulations. That is not philosophy. It's useing emperical evidence and trying to replicate life from purely random chance.

These are experiments that have just have no impact on the question under discussion here. Those experiments show only that things might have been different; they do not show some kind of cosmological 'intent' to encourage 'life as we know it'.

"Replicating life from purely random chance"? What does that mean? Life did not arise from 'random chance'; the cosmos puts some very strict controls on everything. It is not random chance that carbon atoms can form such flexible bond patterns with such a variety of other atoms.

You look at the question from the point of view that carbon works the way it does SO carbon based life can exist. That is assigning 'intent' to the Cosmos.

I look at it as carbon based life exists BECAUSE carbon works the way it does. That is assigning possibilities to chemistry and physics.

The two views are BOTH LEGITIMATE views. I fall with one, you with the other. That's philosophy for you.

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding fine tuning and a couple dozen arguing against it.

Well you are wrong there, because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers in support of just one cosmological "inflating universe" scenario, every one of which is an argument in favor of the anthropic principle.

When science and philosophy collide in a ‘fine-tuned’ universe

... While some physicists still hold out for a “natural” explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation other than the Anthropic Principle — the universe is in this exceedingly improbable state, because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to discuss the fact.

They further note that the prevailing “eternal inflation” big bang scenario suggests that our universe is just one pocket in a continuously bifurcating multiverse.

Inflation cosmology, by the way, got a significant experimental boost with the March 17, 2014 announcement that astronomers had discovered gravitational waves, signatures of the big bang inflation, in data collected from telescopes based at the South Pole.

In a similar vein, string theory, the current best candidate for a “theory of everything,” predicts an enormous ensemble, numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly fine-tuned universe.

So now, while I don't like to invoke the multiverse to support my view (probably because I formed it decades before multiverse was a concept that had escaped the pages of science fiction tales), the above article shows that there is strong theoretical and experimental evidence to support it, just as you say you have lots of experimental results to back your view.

Furthermore, I think you would do well to grasp the idea that science and philosophy are indeed closely intertwined, despite the backing off by scientists the the last half century.

In a 2004 review in Science of Searle’s Mind a Brief Introduction, neuroscientist Christof Koch wrote:

Whether we scientists are inspired, bored, or infuriated by philosophy, all our theorising and experimentation depends on particular philosophical background assumptions. This hidden influence is an acute embarrassment to many researchers, and it is therefore not often acknowledged. Such fundamental notions as reality, space, time and causality – notions found at the core of the scientific enterprise – all rely on particular metaphysical assumptions about the world.

This may seem self-evident, and was regarded as important by Einstein, Bohr and the founders of quantum theory a century ago, but it runs against the grain of the views of working scientists in the post-war period.

Indeed, 21st-century mathematicians and scientists seem to have little need of philosophy.

I have reinserted the links from the article, or you could just go read the article of course. The article discusses the philosophical differences between the two paradigms, fine tuned or anthropic, and the questions the different views present to science.

Modern science needs philosophy

With this backdrop, a growing number of scientists are calling for head-to-head interactions with philosophers. In a recent New Scientist article, cosmologist Joseph Silk reviews these and other issues now faced by the field, and then notes that such problems, probing the meaning of our very existence, are closely akin to those that have been debated by philosophers through the ages.

Thus perhaps a new dialogue between science and philosophy can bring some badly needed insights into physics and other leading-edge fields such as neurobiology. (Indeed, there is a burgeoning sub discipline of neurophilosophy.)

As Silk explains,

Drawing the line between philosophy and physics has never been easy. Perhaps it is time to stop trying. The interface is ripe for exploration.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have been accused that I don't believe in science by evolutionists.
That's a blatant and ugly lie, the straw man, I tend to use that same blatant lie and straw man back at the atheists now, it's kind of true in a logical sort of way.

The truth is that I don't believe in the science used in evolution, I won't accept it, I am not interested in the guessing games.

So, the science used in the study of evolution that you don't believe in includes at minimum the physical sciences: chemistry, physics, oceanography, ecology, geology and other geosciences, chronology, and others; and the life sciences: biology including human biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and others; and formal sciences such as: mathematics, logic, statistics, systems theory, and increasingly computer science theory.

That is not to mention the use of the applied sciences like Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, and Computer Science for building research tools and simulations.

The question then, asks itself: exactly what science DO you believe in?

originally posted by: korath
The best argument against evolution is, if there's monkeys and men, where are all the life forms in between?

The best argument is to show that you don't understand it?

a reply to: luthier

To theriozr other universes or forms of life exist is a big what if. You used this in your arguement and then changed the rules.

You simply didn't understand that part of my post.

I summarized the points of those that argue in favor of the fine tuned paradigm. The mention was not part of MY argument, other than to summarize the point that I was contending against. Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand that paradigm completely.

The what-if scenarios are used to support 'fine tune'. The argument goes "look here, what if the energy state of the carbon atom was slightly larger or smaller? What then? Life (as we know it) could not exist under that circumstance. Therefore that carbon atom appears to be fine tuned to support life".

Furthermore, proponents of the fine-tuned universe call on the multiverse to support their ideas. They 'create' multiverses every time they propose a 'what-if' scenario. There are something like 25 or 26 'fundamental constants' that can be tinkered with (mathematically and in modeling) to produce multiverses that cannot exist for more than a nanosecond or could not support carbon life, or would favor silicon life maybe, or whatever. The very thought of 'fine tuning' implies that there must be other universes that are 'out of tune'.

I repeat these are not MY arguments, they are yours as a proponent of the 'fine tuned cosmos' paradigm, and I have merely summarized them so we can be on the same page. Unfortunately, I seem to have failed to make that obvious to you.

Now, I have to acknowledge that multiverses are used by OTHERS to support my view, the anthropic paradigm too.

I have no problem with the existence of multiverses, I just don't find them necessary to support my argument. Certainly, they may lend mathematical credence to the idea, because if an infinity of universes exist, then an infinity will have life and an infinity won't. That's fine. If so, there is nothing remarkable about being in one of an infinity of universes that contains life. The only thing that is remarkable thing is that we exist so that we can ask the question - and that is the anthropic principle in a nut shell - "observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it".

It is the same concept when ever you get reflective about your own personal identity. "Why am I 'ME' and not Dave next door or Mary across the street?" That is another philosophical question we ask ourselves early in life, and maybe occasionally when we just get a weird chill up our spine about something, or see a car crash, or a lottery winner celebrating. The anthropic principle would say that YOUR body was not 'fine tuned' so YOUR mind could occupy it; YOUR mind is what it is because it is in YOUR body.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have been accused that I don't believe in science by evolutionists.
That's a blatant and ugly lie, the straw man, I tend to use that same blatant lie and straw man back at the atheists now, it's kind of true in a logical sort of way.

The truth is that I don't believe in the science used in evolution, I won't accept it, I am not interested in the guessing games.

So, the science used in the study of evolution that you don't believe in includes at minimum the physical sciences: chemistry, physics, oceanography, ecology, geology and other geosciences, chronology, and others; and the life sciences: biology including human biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and others; and formal sciences such as: mathematics, logic, statistics, systems theory, and increasingly computer science theory.

That is not to mention the use of the applied sciences like Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, and Computer Science for building research tools and simulations.

The question then, asks itself: exactly what science DO you believe in?

I know this question isnt worth answering.
But Hey

Show me how chemistry, your first science listed, is actualised in evolution theory

If you want we can go through the sciences one by one, though is this the time and place?

www.icr.org...

I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields

As I see it, using those valid sciences in evolution theory is akin to putting diesel in a petrol engine.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have been accused that I don't believe in science by evolutionists.
That's a blatant and ugly lie, the straw man, I tend to use that same blatant lie and straw man back at the atheists now, it's kind of true in a logical sort of way.

The truth is that I don't believe in the science used in evolution, I won't accept it, I am not interested in the guessing games.

So, the science used in the study of evolution that you don't believe in includes at minimum the physical sciences: chemistry, physics, oceanography, ecology, geology and other geosciences, chronology, and others; and the life sciences: biology including human biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and others; and formal sciences such as: mathematics, logic, statistics, systems theory, and increasingly computer science theory.

That is not to mention the use of the applied sciences like Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, and Computer Science for building research tools and simulations.

The question then, asks itself: exactly what science DO you believe in?

I know this question isnt worth answering.
But Hey

Show me how chemistry, your first science listed, is actualised in evolution theory

If you want we can go through the sciences one by one, though is this the time and place?

www.icr.org...

I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields

As I see it, using those valid sciences in evolution theory is akin to putting diesel in a petrol engine.

Chemistry is most definitely part of the evolutionary process. A couple of examples below – complex chemistry, but demonstrates how chemistry participates in evolution. I'm not going into deep detail here because unless you're a chemist, it would be meaningless.

RuBisCO ( ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) -- is the most abundant protein on the planet. It's an enzyme that catalyses the energy-carbon dioxide-sugar conversion in photosynthesis. This is how carbon is “fixed” in the atmosphere. This enzyme was responsible for lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as increasing the concentration of oxygen. Since the reaction is a feedback loop, the enzyme diminished in its effectiveness over time of lowering CO2 and increasing O2. But life demanded an increasing level of O2 and a lessening of CO2 in the atmosphere to survive. To compensate, another enzyme developed called carbonic anhydrase – this enzyme works along with RuBisCO to diminish CO2 and increase O2. This is a step in evolution that required CHEMISTRY to achieve. The appearance of carbonic anhydrase was an evolutionary event that allowed life to continue on this planet.

Another chemical process critical for evolution is stereochemistry and codon assignments which are specific for amino acid biosynthesis. You can think of stereochemistry as 3 dimensional configurations where bonding angles, bonding energies, and spatial positioning help define the functionality of a macromolecule like DNA. Without the evolutionary process, the codons would be static or stuck i.e. remain essentially in their original configuration, not allowing for more complex organisms to evolve, change and become new species.

No chemistry – no life – no evolution.

Whoever is writing at your ICR website, is not a chemist – I don't care what paper they claim to have hanging on the wall. Even the writing style is unscientific. What the article describes (and defends) is that chemistry played no part in the origin of life. Again, these are two different topics: abiogenesis and evolution.

On the abiogenesis front, there is new, very intriguing evidence as to initial conditions and the appearance of life.
Subject for another thread though.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields

Wouldn't all science that supports a religious view also fall under this banner?

originally posted by: korath
The best argument against evolution is, if there's monkeys and men, where are all the life forms in between?

You mean like these?

humanorigins.si.edu...

That link doesn't even cover them all. There are more than 20 known species between ancient ape (not monkeys) and modern human.

Hominidae

Here's the main issue with the OP. He's not talking about evolution, he's talking about materialism. I don't know why everybody has to equivocate evolution and materialism or atheism as if they are equals. They are not. Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, most religious folks actually believe this, it's just the YECers that are more loyal to literal translations of texts than to god. It would really be refreshing if one of these threads actually accurately described evolution, but it seems that never happens. Evolution is just being used as a buzz word to create arguments, at least that's the vibe I'm getting.