Print
Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it
by Paul Davies, Guardian
Thanks to ranjani for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html
We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith either divinity or physical laws. True meaning is to be found within nature
Paul Davies
Tuesday June 26, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super- intellect has monkeyed with physics".
To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.
Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life. So what's going on?
The intelligent design movement has inevitably seized on the Goldilocks enigma as evidence of divine providence, prompting a scientific backlash and boosting the recent spate of God-bashing bestsellers.
Fuelling the controversy is an unanswered question lurking at the very heart of science - the origin of the laws of physics. Where do they come from? Why do they have the form that they do? Traditionally, scientists have treated the laws of physics as simply "given", elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth, and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science.
But the embarrassment of the Goldilocks enigma has prompted a rethink. The Cambridge cosmologist Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, suggests the laws of physics aren't absolute and universal but more akin to local bylaws, varying from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God's-eye view would show our universe as merely a single representative amid a vast assemblage of universes, each with its own bylaws. Rees calls this system "the multiverse", and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. Only rarely within the variegated cosmic quilt will a universe possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe apparently customised for habitation; we could hardly exist in one where life is impossible. If Rees is right, the impression of design is illusory: our universe has simply hit the jackpot in a gigantic cosmic lottery.
The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.
The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better.
This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.
I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships. I propose instead that the laws are more like computer software: programs being run on the great cosmic computer. They emerge with the universe at the big bang and are inherent in it, not stamped on it from without like a maker's mark.
Man-made computers are limited in their performance by finite processing speed and memory. So, too, the cosmic computer is limited in power by its age and the finite speed of light. Seth Lloyd, an engineer at MIT, has calculated how many bits of information the observable universe has processed since the big bang. The answer is one followed by 122 zeros. Crucially, however, the limit was smaller in the past because the universe was younger. Just after the big bang, when the basic properties of the universe were being forged, its information capacity was so restricted that the consequences would have been profound.
Here's why. If a law is a truly exact mathematical relationship, it requires infinite information to specify it. In my opinion, however, no law can apply to a level of precision finer than all the information in the universe can express. Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.
Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.
· Paul Davies is director of Beyond, a research centre at Arizona State University, and author of The Goldilocks Enigma paul.davies@asu.edu
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html
We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith either divinity or physical laws. True meaning is to be found within nature
Paul Davies
Tuesday June 26, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super- intellect has monkeyed with physics".
To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.
Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life. So what's going on?
The intelligent design movement has inevitably seized on the Goldilocks enigma as evidence of divine providence, prompting a scientific backlash and boosting the recent spate of God-bashing bestsellers.
Fuelling the controversy is an unanswered question lurking at the very heart of science - the origin of the laws of physics. Where do they come from? Why do they have the form that they do? Traditionally, scientists have treated the laws of physics as simply "given", elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth, and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science.
But the embarrassment of the Goldilocks enigma has prompted a rethink. The Cambridge cosmologist Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, suggests the laws of physics aren't absolute and universal but more akin to local bylaws, varying from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God's-eye view would show our universe as merely a single representative amid a vast assemblage of universes, each with its own bylaws. Rees calls this system "the multiverse", and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. Only rarely within the variegated cosmic quilt will a universe possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe apparently customised for habitation; we could hardly exist in one where life is impossible. If Rees is right, the impression of design is illusory: our universe has simply hit the jackpot in a gigantic cosmic lottery.
The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.
The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better.
This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.
I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships. I propose instead that the laws are more like computer software: programs being run on the great cosmic computer. They emerge with the universe at the big bang and are inherent in it, not stamped on it from without like a maker's mark.
Man-made computers are limited in their performance by finite processing speed and memory. So, too, the cosmic computer is limited in power by its age and the finite speed of light. Seth Lloyd, an engineer at MIT, has calculated how many bits of information the observable universe has processed since the big bang. The answer is one followed by 122 zeros. Crucially, however, the limit was smaller in the past because the universe was younger. Just after the big bang, when the basic properties of the universe were being forged, its information capacity was so restricted that the consequences would have been profound.
Here's why. If a law is a truly exact mathematical relationship, it requires infinite information to specify it. In my opinion, however, no law can apply to a level of precision finer than all the information in the universe can express. Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.
Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.
· Paul Davies is director of Beyond, a research centre at Arizona State University, and author of The Goldilocks Enigma paul.davies@asu.edu
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 50 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #52898 by MartinSGill on June 28, 2007 at 12:45 pm
When the laws move outside the goldilocks zone "life as we know it" isn't possible.What about life that we don't know?
Who says that an alternate universe with different constants can't bring forth life in a totally different way?
In my view presuming that our constants are the only valid constants is a tad arrogant and rather full of hubris.
Maybe we should be talking about "constants of the gaps" or "multiverses of the gaps".
Other Comments by MartinSGill
3. Comment #52902 by Friend Giskard on June 28, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence.
But who ever claimed it was a complete explanation of existence? And since when do we evaluate the merits of a scientific hypothesis by asking whether it constitutes a complete explanation of existence? And how do Davies' ideas not also suffer from this shortcoming?
Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today.
Why?
I don't understand his reasoning at all.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
4. Comment #52906 by godma on June 28, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I like Davies' line of reasoning, for the most part. But there's one main theme that bugs me."the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it"
If there is an answer, then yes, but not because we're sure that's where it is...only because that's the only place testable. And that's self-defining, because we will always call the scope of what is testable "nature". If we discover "more" to nature, that will only expand the scope of what we think of as nature.
I like the analogy of 1000 people all flipping coins. Since there is just about a 1/1000 chance of a coin coming up heads 10 times in a row, it's not impressive that one of those 1000 people would see that result. Now imagine how special that one person would feel if he did not know about the other 999 people.
Other Comments by godma
5. Comment #52911 by Bonzai on June 28, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Comment #52902 by Friend GiskardBut who ever claimed it was a complete explanation of existence? And since when do we evaluate the merits of a scientific hypothesis by asking whether it constitutes a complete explanation of existence? And how do Davies' ideas not also suffer from this shortcoming?
But "multiverse" is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is at the far speculative end of string theory, which itself is rather more like philosophy buttressed with esoteric math than physics(it has no testable consequence so far)
We don't know much of anything on big questions on the frontier of cosmology such as the origin of the universe. There are speculations and wild ideas but nothing really solid. Multiverse is a possibility, but I wouldn't use it to argue any point as if it is a well established fact. It is better to be honest and admit that we don't know.
Other Comments by Bonzai
6. Comment #52918 by Friend Giskard on June 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Bonzai. I agree. That's why I deliberately used the word hypothesis and not theory.Although one could debate whether "scientific hypothesis" is too strong, you can't deny that it is at least a hypothesis.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
7. Comment #52930 by PacificWind on June 28, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I agree with the first part of Davies' article and the previous posters. At this point in time, I think the main utility of the multiverse proposal in the science/religion debate is as a plausible alternative to the creationist argument from fine-tuning. It shares with creationism/ID the property of being undisprovable (if that's a word), but does not require an improbable intelligent designer. I agree with bonzai that the correct stance is to "admit that we don't know" but it is at least helpful for our side to have some sort of counterproposal to the creationist claim, in lieu of a real scientific answer.That said, I also don't understand Davies' new hypothesis at all. I don't mind all of the information theory talk, but I don't see what kind of mechanism could allow the universe to "engineer its own bio-friendliness." It seems like there would have to be some sort of feedback loop that would reinforce bio-friendly aspects of the laws of nature and suppress others. But given my understanding of cosmology, life-as-we-know-it could not have arisen until after the formation of the first stars and their supernovae (which produced the heavy elements necessary for organic chemistry). At that time, the physical laws were pretty much fixed (certainly the case that Davies considers – the mass difference between proton and neutron – would have been decided long ago). Thus the self-engineering universe would have to have tuned its own physical constants for bio-friendliness before any life had in fact arisen. It would have to "know" in advance the outcome of its tuning. I don't see how that could be possible, so I am very skeptical of bio-friendliness as a guiding principle of cosmological evolution. Does anyone know any more detail about Davies' idea? He is a cosmologist, so I would at least expect him to make a little more sense.
Other Comments by PacificWind
8. Comment #52978 by Russell Blackford on June 28, 2007 at 9:56 pm
You do all realise, I take it, that this is just a short extract from his new book. That's not to say that his ideas become crystal clear if you read the whole thing - indeed I found some of the stuff in the last chapters very difficult, and I couldn't begin to explain it - but it's just worth bearing in mind when reading a short teaser in a newspaper.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
9. Comment #52984 by Downunder on June 28, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Whoever opened this red hot can of worms, knew he would get a lot of bites!The laws of physics are formulated by man's intellect to best fit observed events. A God, a Creator are mere human envisaged beings for something that man feels by nature ought to exist to make things work because that is how we do it. Why not accept that the Universe exists as it is, was and will be; with its intelligent dimensions beyond our intelligent horizon, no faith involved, no believing , just accepting the fact. Why we are here, we can not answer because the Universe has given us a loan for only a minute lifespan, loaned us a very small part of its intelligence, a minute part of its TOTALITY where space and time are not applicable. For "Gods" sake let us not start another religion with a "new multi universe God". That is asking for a religious space war (to many Doctor Who watchers). The Big Bang is the product of some intelligent but still mere human individuals; a theory to fit some observations of "nearby" astronomical facts. I believe that there is more universe beyond whatever we can observe. Nature's phenomena are to me evidence of the existence of "power" in the universe. That power is only one of the dimensions of the Univere's dimensionless intellect.
My conclusion: better behave myself or I'll hate myself when I rejoin the ultimate intellect! I am close to my use-by-date.
Other Comments by Downunder
10. Comment #53009 by Major Bloodnok on June 29, 2007 at 2:08 am
Comment #52911 by BonzaiBut "multiverse" is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is at the far speculative end of string theory, which itself is rather more like philosophy buttressed with esoteric math than physics(it has no testable consequence so far)
It was my understanding that string theory does have testable consequences, but that we currently lack the technology to do the testing.
Other Comments by Major Bloodnok
11. Comment #53082 by stephenray on June 29, 2007 at 9:01 am
Here's the thing.You sit down at a card table and get delivered a bridge hand. Looking at your cards, and being that you are a computational wizard, you quickly realise that the odds against that particular collection of 13 cards being dealt to you is billions to 1. Clearly that is so unlikely as to be impossible, so you conclude that there must be something going on that cannot be explained by chance alone.
This is the anthropomorphic principle. No point being amazed at the fine tuning of the twiddled knobs - if they *weren't* on that setting *we* wouldn't be here to think about it.
We are here, so the probability that the knobs will be set to produce a universe that produces homo sapiens is 1.
(credit to John Allen Paulos)
Other Comments by stephenray
12. Comment #53111 by Roll on June 29, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Maybe some of you learned philosophers or scientists here could expand a little on the (common sense!) notion that the universe we inhabit is the only possible way that matter and energy could have come together. I have often wondered about it.The thought that there is no multiverse necessary, because after any big bang, all the components could ONLY be arranged in the way that we see them today.
Humour me and educate me! Thx.
Other Comments by Roll
13. Comment #53115 by steve99 on June 29, 2007 at 1:06 pm
But "multiverse" is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is at the far speculative end of string theory, which itself is rather more like philosophy buttressed with esoteric math than physics(it has no testable consequence so far)
I know it seems like String Theory has dominated everything in physics these days, but multiverse theories usually have nothing to do with it.
There are various types of multiverse. To describe just a couple, there are the multiverses of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (a proposition I find unsatisfactory, as it has little explanatory benefit), and the multiverse of inflationary theory. The inflation model of the start of the universe suggests that the visible universe is a very, very small fraction of what exists, and there are a vast number of unreachable areas, which could have different physical laws.
Other Comments by steve99
14. Comment #53133 by Vinelectric on June 29, 2007 at 3:34 pm
RollVic Stegner (Failed Hypothesis and the Comprehensible Cosmos) addresses this point quite well. There's room for fiddling with the knobs and still ending up with a viable universe.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
15. Comment #53143 by PaulJ on June 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm
If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it.The operative word here is "if".
Personally I don't think there is an ultimate meaning to existence. It just ... exists.
Other Comments by PaulJ
16. Comment #53155 by Pete_C on June 29, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Stephenray - I think you're discounting something about the anthropic principle. You say there's "no point being amazed", but I think there may be.Didn't Richard give the example in TGD about the man who miraculously survives the firing squad: should he be surprised? On one hand, no, he shouldn't, since all bullets sparing him is the only outcome consistent with his still being alive to wonder at it (your interpretation). On the other hand, that is such a surprising outcome that the guy could still be forgiven for wondering if something was up. Especially if there were thousands of shooters, etc.
Other Comments by Pete_C
17. Comment #53159 by steve99 on June 29, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Vic Stegner (Failed Hypothesis and the Comprehensible Cosmos) addresses this point quite well. There's room for fiddling with the knobs and still ending up with a viable universe.
I think that Stenger's contributions to this debate have been vastly over-rated, and I am a little disappointed that Dawkins sometimes mentions him. As Dawkins is no expert in cosmology, he should surely go with the consensus, which is that Stenger's ideas are not widely accepted.
There is no avoiding the fact that there is very little room for 'fiddling the knobs' of physical constants and still ending up with a universe containing life. Almost all values of these constants result in universe with no structures of any kind at all; universes which rapidly expand to emptiness, or which collapse into a black hole in a fraction of a second.
This is no argument for a God, but it means that Stenger has not explained anything.
Other Comments by steve99
18. Comment #53196 by gimlibengloin on June 30, 2007 at 3:43 am
steve99"This is no argument for a God, but it means that Stenger has not explained anything."
It would be interesting to know why it is "no argument for a God"
Fred Hoyle said it was as if a super-intellect had monkeyed with the laws of physics.
Paul Davies writes, "it merely begs the question of who designed the designer".
This would appear to be the usual Dawkins-esgue escapism. Logically there are three 'states' of existence: impossible (eg square circles), possible (eg humans), and necessary (eg God). Since it is logically possible to have a necessary being then it is futile to ask where it came from or who designed it. By definition a necessary existence has no designer, cause, or beginning.
Richard Dawkins asserts that living organisms are immensely complex and seem to have been intelligently designed. Similarly physicists like Hoyle, Davies, Hawking acknowledge that this is also the case with the physical constants of the universe. Therefore, we propose, quite reasonably that the universe and the organisms within it were designed.
The question as to the Designer's origin is resolved by saying that it is uncaused or Necessary which is in line I might add with the Bible.
Regards, GBG
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
19. Comment #53203 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 4:37 am
This would appear to be the usual Dawkins-esgue escapism. Logically there are three 'states' of existence: impossible (eg square circles), possible (eg humans), and necessary (eg God). Since it is logically possible to have a necessary being then it is futile to ask where it came from or who designed it. By definition a necessary existence has no designer, cause, or beginning.
Richard Dawkins asserts that living organisms are immensely complex and seem to have been intelligently designed. Similarly physicists like Hoyle, Davies, Hawking acknowledge that this is also the case with the physical constants of the universe. Therefore, we propose, quite reasonably that the universe and the organisms within it were designed.
The question as to the Designer's origin is resolved by saying that it is uncaused or Necessary which is in line I might add with the Bible.
Defend that statement! How does it follow that god is necessary?
When will YECs stop quoting Dawkins out of context on design?
Why does the designer have to be uncaused? Why can't the universe be uncaused. These however are not the questions that made you believe in YEC though are they? The universe is old with many many planets and Archaeopteryx is more dinosaur than bird - I believe that is where we left off before
Other Comments by BillySands
20. Comment #53204 by Vinelectric on June 30, 2007 at 4:39 am
GBGHow can anyone confidently make a statement about a necessary existence?
In the abscence of direct empirical evidence for the presumed originator of material existence how can anyone go one step further and make a double assumption:
1. It exists.
2. It is uncaused.
This could well be an excercise in self deception that we could all do well without.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
21. Comment #53214 by Vinelectric on June 30, 2007 at 6:14 am
steve99Stegner's views may not conform with the consensus but he quotes several authors that have all reached similar conclusions independently. It would be hard to discredit either position and to be honest it would be a bit pointless trying to do this in the first place. The universe simply couldn't be any other way than what it is.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
22. Comment #53360 by beeline on July 1, 2007 at 2:53 am
Not that I wish to come across all 'Cult of the Children' or anything, but in a recent lecture Davies gave in Oxford to promote his 'Goldilocks' book, he was quite brilliantly tripped up by a small boy.The question that this boy asked was very simple, and addressed the very idea that Davies was using to sell his book. He asked (and I paraphrase):
If some of the constants were different, wouldn't evolution just work the same way it does in our universe, and just make life evolve in some other way, but still filling in the available niches?
Probably so. As has been said above: we can't know what other kinds of life are possible wth other sets of constants. And of course you can't change just one constant - they're very likely all connected: if one is different, they quite possibly all are...
Other Comments by beeline
23. Comment #53441 by jonjermey on July 1, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The best comment so far on the anthropomorphic principle comes from the late Douglas Adams: "It's as if the rainwater in a puddle was to say: 'What a coincidence! Out of all the possible holes on the planet I happened to land in one that was exactly my shape!'"One cause of the anthropomorphic principle is a failure to comprehend large numbers - including infinity. It's the failure to distinguish between 'Surprise! I won the lottery!' and 'Surprise! Somebody won the lottery!'. The first is remarkable; the second is inevitable.
Let's say for the same of argument that the chance of our kind of universe coming to exist at random is one in a trillion. (Or a trillion trillion. Or a trillion trillion trillion. Or a trillion to the power of a trillion. Doesn't matter, it all works out the same way.)
Now, once we know the number of different universes that have ever existed or will exist, we can accurately work out the odds on our one eventually turning up. What's that? Oh, shoot - we DON'T know how many different universes have or will existed, do we? But as far as we know this number is infinitely large. In which case the chance of our universe turning up eventually is exactly 100% and no surprise at all. Because over an infinite period of time ANYTHING that is possible will happen. Period.
Other Comments by jonjermey
24. Comment #53532 by Janus on July 2, 2007 at 12:22 am
Davies' hypothesis may explain the complexity of the "laws of the universe", but it does nothing to solve the Goldilocks problem, which as far as I can tell can only truly be solved by a multiverse of some sort.To use an analogy, accretion theory explains the origin of planets, but it doesn't explain why the Earth is so perfect for carbon-based life to evolve on it. That is explained by the huge number of planets that exist in the universe. In other words, we're faced with two problems: Explaining complexity (which is solved by accretion theory in the case of planets, and Davies' hypothesis in the case of universes), and explaining the coincidence (which is solved by there being so many planets in the case of Earth, and by the multiverse in the case of our universe).
Richard Dawkins asserts that living organisms are immensely complex and seem to have been intelligently designed. Similarly physicists like Hoyle, Davies, Hawking acknowledge that this is also the case with the physical constants of the universe. Therefore, we propose, quite reasonably that the universe and the organisms within it were designed.
The question as to the Designer's origin is resolved by saying that it is uncaused or Necessary which is in line I might add with the Bible.
Yes, I see. What if our ancestors who lived before Darwin had been as lazy as you are and said, "There's no need to explain why humans exist, the first humans to exist were uncaused and necessary. Problem solved!"?
Because that's all that it takes to explain complexity according to you, call it "uncaused and necessary", and we're done with it! It's like magic, man!
If we go along with your logic, why should scientists even try to explain the laws of the universe, as Davies is attempting to do, and the universe's so-called fine-tuning? They can just call the universe and its laws "uncaused and necessary!" and voila! Everything's been explained!
But no, fortunately we're not all as eager to give up as you are, and scientists have figured out the real reason why humans exist: We, and all other lifeforms, have arisen from relatively simple beginnings via the algorithm of evolution by natural selection.
Likewise, Davies is trying to explain the laws of the universe in terms of simpler entities, perhaps fundamentally simple ones. Because you see, that's the only point where it may finally be OK to play the "uncaused and necessary" card you love so much, when our string of explanations reaches the point of fundamental simplicity. Complexity requires explanation, but fundamental simplicity does not. If anything is necessary, it will be that, not an immensely complex intelligent being.
Other Comments by Janus
25. Comment #53604 by gimlibengloin on July 2, 2007 at 8:02 am
Billy Sands & vinelectric (19 & 20)"How does it follow that god is necessary?"
I'm saying that logically their are only three possible catagories of existence: Impossible (ie can't exist eg square circles); possible (may or may not exist or can come to be or cease to be eg humans and unicorns); and Necessary (ie must exist). The fact that it is logically possible for a Necessary Being to exist doesn't mean it does but it is, at least possible.
Now, scientists like Prof Dawkins and Sir Fred Hoyle neither of whom have any theistic or ID axe to grind acknowledge that living organisms and the universe give evidence of having been designed (see above article by Davies). Prof dawkins argument against this is that this leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. However, since the universe looks designed and its chamce origin is highly improbable we are warrented in believing that it was designed especially when it is logically consistent to propose a Necessary Being as the designer.
Therefore, Dawkins who designed the designer is not a valid objection neither scripturally nor logically.
I'm not quoting Dawkins out of context but simply asserting that his famous argument against a Designer doesn't stand up
kind regards, GBG
As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
26. Comment #53610 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 8:38 am
GBGThe fact that it is logically possible for a Necessary Being to exist doesn't mean it does but it is, at least possible.
So, you are back tracking. God is no longer necessary, but possible. That's a step in the right direction. Your statement was however that he was necessary, and thats wwhat I asked you to back up.
I'm not quoting Dawkins out of context but simply asserting that his famous argument against a Designer doesn't stand up
You are, because he goes to great length to explain the illusion of design. I find this fundie misrepresentiation very distasteful.
As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.
Oh really? I'm not the one who is indulging in wishful thinking. I have provided evidence in the past. You have provided none to support your claim it was a bird. If you want to convince me otherwise, you better come up with some pretty damn good evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Variation
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dromey.htm
Discuss!
Other Comments by BillySands
27. Comment #53696 by hightrekker on July 2, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I have always read Paul Davies with deep suspicion (equanimity of view brought this on, no matter what letters he has behind his name)--Paul Davies is a closet Cabbage for Christ
Other Comments by hightrekker
28. Comment #53794 by gimlibengloin on July 3, 2007 at 7:48 am
Billy Sands (27)"So, you are back tracking. God is no longer necessary, but possible. That's a step in the right direction. Your statement was however that he was necessary, and thats wwhat I asked you to back up."
Totally incorrect as you know. I am not asserting that "God is no longer necessary" but rather that the mere POSSIBILITY of the existence of a Necessary Being doesn't mean that such a being exists.
Prof dawkins argument is that the argument to design is invalid because it would then demand that the Designer was designed. This however is not the case because it is possible that the designer exists 'Necessarily' not contingently. Since, living organisms and the universe show evidence of design as admitted by Dawkins, Hoyle, Davies we have good reason to believe that it is especially as the 'Who designed the Designer' argument is seen to be irrelevant.
"You are, because he goes to great length to explain the illusion of design. I find this fundie misrepresentiation very distasteful."
Again you're response is wrongheaded. The word 'illusion' is an INTERPRETATION of the data and not the most reasonable one but is, instead, an attempt to escape the obvious. Richard acknowledges that organisms are extremely complex and appear to be intelligently designed and his attempt to undermine the argument to design is unsuccessful.
regards GBG
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
29. Comment #53795 by gimlibengloin on July 3, 2007 at 7:55 am
Billy Sands"Oh really? I'm not the one who is indulging in wishful thinking. I have provided evidence in the past. You have provided none to support your claim it was a bird. If you want to convince me otherwise, you better come up with some pretty damn good"
sorry Billy but note this from the site you cite:
"Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact."
When we previously discussed this I cited one of the world's leading authorities on birds and an evolutionist. He acknowledges that Archaeopteryx is merely a bird and not an intermediate.
Its funny the way you keep harping on about Archaeopteryx. This stands as proof of the pitiful absence of evidence for Darwinian theory. 99.9% of the fossil evidence isn't there remember?? And you complain about problems in the Bible???
regards, GBG
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
30. Comment #53812 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 10:22 am
GBGTotally incorrect as you know. I am not asserting that "God is no longer necessary"
so you mean he is? well you did say
and necessary (eg God).
well, you still haven't justified this statement
but rather that the mere POSSIBILITY of the existence of a Necessary Being doesn't mean that such a being exists.
What a thourughly feeble statement. What evidence do you have that there is a need for aneccessary being - any more than a necessary can of coca cola for existence?
This however is not the case because it is possible that the designer exists 'Necessarily'
Evidence? Not only do you invent a designer, but you give him particular qualities that prevents you questioning further. Suppose there was a designer, and he was designed. It seems you are being selective in your arguements and are trying to prove your point (and failing). Who designed the designer is a valid question, but there is no point in addressing that since there is no evidence of a designer
Again you're response is wrongheaded. The word 'illusion' is an INTERPRETATION of the data and not the most reasonable one but is, instead, an attempt to escape the obvious. Richard acknowledges that organisms are extremely complex and appear to be intelligently designed and his attempt to undermine the argument to design is unsuccessful.
No, evolution destroys design, not just who designed the designer. Evolutionists make predictions based on the evidence, that gets confirmed : chimps have one more chromosome than us, therefore 2 of ours fused after splitting from chimps. Further predictions include the existence os inta chromosomal telomeric sequences and an extra centromere in the fusion product - guess what, its chromosome 2 and all these exist. What do you have? god made man (or was it man, anoimal and people -or animals and people together?)
sorry Billy but note this from the site you cite:
Try reading the peer revievwed studies they quote. a review is not a piece of original research
When we previously discussed this I cited one of the world's leading authorities on birds and an evolutionist. He acknowledges that Archaeopteryx is merely a bird and not an intermediate.
From what I recall, you quote mined and presented no evidence, so what's your point?
Its funny the way you keep harping on about Archaeopteryx. This stands as proof of the pitiful absence of evidence for Darwinian theory. 99.9% of the fossil evidence isn't there remember?? And you complain about problems in the Bible???
Call me pedantic, but I would expect the inspired word of the so called creator of the universe to actually make sense and be in harmony with the facts. The rarity of fossilisation makes it all the more remarkable we have so many intermediates.
Were are all the vertabrates in the oldest rocks?
Out of interest, what would it mean to you if you discovered evolution was true
Other Comments by BillySands
31. Comment #53919 by gimlibengloin on July 4, 2007 at 7:45 am
Billy Sands (30)"Evidence? Not only do you invent a designer, but you give him particular qualities that prevents you questioning further. Suppose there was a designer, and he was designed. It seems you are being selective in your arguements and are trying to prove your point (and failing). Who designed the designer is a valid question, but there is no point in addressing that since there is no evidence of a designer"
Well, clearly you're talking nonsense a fact thats confirmed by all the books Prof dawkins has written trying to escape from the reality of Design in nature. Both the physicists and biologists like dawkins acknowledge the evidence for design and, indeed, in the early part of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins criticises an atheist philosepher for being so naive in dismissing the need for an answer to this evidence. Dawkins, of course, dismisses the evidence in two ways: firstly by asserting the 'Who designed the designer" argument which is, as shown, irrelevant; and secondly by appealing to the power of NS and random mutation. Of course, this is also irrelevant because there exists no evidence that NS and RM can produce new characteristics or information.
So, the fact remains that a designer is required by the evidence and it is logically possible that that Designer is not contingent or caused but is, in fact, Necessary.
"Evolutionists make predictions based on the evidence, that gets confirmed : chimps have one more chromosome than us, therefore 2 of ours fused after splitting from chimps. Further predictions include the existence os inta chromosomal telomeric sequences and an extra centromere in the fusion product - guess what, its chromosome 2 and all these exist."
No, they make no such "predictions". What they do is observe the data and then mould their theory to fit it which is what you're doing here.
The fusing of two of our chromosomes is not a prediction of evolution it is irrelevant. You believe in evolution and you observe that chimps have "one more chromosome". You then offer the totally unsupported ad hoc explanation above.
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
32. Comment #53920 by gimlibengloin on July 4, 2007 at 7:51 am
Billy Sands (cont..)"From what I recall, you quote mined and presented no evidence, so what's your point?"
The allegation of "quote mining" is simply a fundamentalist atheist's way of conveniently ignoring the facts. The facts are that 99.9% of the fossil evidence for evolution doesn't exist and the best examples that we do have eg Archaeopteryx are debated (and even denied) by evolutionists.
"Call me pedantic, but I would expect the inspired word of the so called creator of the universe to actually make sense and be in harmony with the facts. The rarity of fossilisation makes it all the more remarkable we have so many intermediates.
Were are all the vertabrates in the oldest rocks?"
Well it does harmonise with the facts but you use a few examples to undermine the massive amounts of evidence testifying to its essential trustworthiness. The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution and yet complain about Luke 2 demonstrates you're blinkered view
"Out of interest, what would it mean to you if you discovered evolution was true"
Well if evolution was true the Bible would be false.
Kind regards GBG
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
33. Comment #53928 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 8:46 am
Now really GBGWell, clearly you're talking nonsense a fact thats confirmed by all the books Prof dawkins has written trying to escape from the reality of Design in nature. Both the physicists and biologists like dawkins acknowledge the evidence for design and, indeed, in the early part of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins criticises an atheist philosepher for being so naive in dismissing the need for an answer to this evidence.
Really? I haven't read much of the blind watchmaker, although my peers discussed it a lot (Richard forgive me). I think you actually mean interpretation, not evidence. Like I say, Evolution argues against design. The fact that the universe is so huge with so many planets and is so old and the fact that humans have only been around for an insignificant fraction of this time argue against design - I can see where your need to deny science comes from though.
'Who designed the designer" argument which is, as shown, irrelevant
Justify. It has not been shown to be irrelevant. All you have done is made a special pleading
Of course, this is also irrelevant because there exists no evidence that NS and RM can produce new characteristics or information.
Want a bet? look up opsin gene duplication and mutation. Look up selective breeding - look what can happen is only a few years - imagine you had billions to play with.
So, the fact remains that a designer is required by the evidence and it is logically possible that that Designer is not contingent or caused but is, in fact, Necessary
Erm no. this is really poor reasoning - considering you have not provided any evidence against evolution or indeed considered other possibilities - like the multiverse or the universe always existing in some form. It appears that you want there to be a designer, so you have logic filters in place.
No, they make no such "predictions". What they do is observe the data and then mould their theory to fit it which is what you're doing here.
What a total lie. Is this the best that you can do? I really am offended by this, and it is so typical of YECs. perhaps you may want to read this post and see some predictions that I made concerning the ordering of genes if this were true, then look at the results I came up with after comparing genomes:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#35871
Another embarassimg prediction (for fundies) was that there would be links between land mammals and whales - ever heard of Ambulocetus?
You then offer the totally unsupported ad hoc explanation above.
Erm, intra-chromosomal telometic sequences? and a decaying second centromere! as will as gene seguences - see above post
The allegation of "quote mining" is simply a fundamentalist atheist's way of conveniently ignoring the facts.
YAAAAWWWN! Wake me up when you have something other than conspiracy theories and unsupported ad homminems - remember. evolution is in no way, shape or frm the reason I am an atheist - Yawn!
facts are that 99.9% of the fossil evidence for evolution doesn't
Yet we still have Archaeopteryx and Ambulocetus! Your point is?
Archaeopteryx are debated (and even denied) by evolutionists.
Ah the old tactic of trying to exagerate differences. The view you refer to is by no means mainstream,or even very well supported - I presume this is why you have not presented an anatomical challenge - going stroppy and stamping your feet will not give archaeopteryx an anapsid skull for example
Well it does harmonise with the facts but you use a few examples to undermine the massive amounts of evidence testifying to its essential trustworthiness. The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution and yet complain about Luke 2 demonstrates you're blinkered view
Finished your girlie outburst yet? No it doesn't make sence - joseph has two dads? (luke, 3 actually) contrived prophecies? historical inaccuracies - census of quirinius? God defeated by iron charriots? did jehoiachin have a sucessor or not? etc etc How does any of this contradict the facts of evolution?
Come on, I gave you a chance to disprove evolution - where are all those early mammals?
Well if evolution was true the Bible would be false.
The pope and Ken Miller disagree. Seriously though, if that is what it means to you, then try being honest with yourself about why you need to deny evolution. Like I say, I am not the one with an agenda to promote.
Other Comments by BillySands
34. Comment #53931 by Quetzalcoatl on July 4, 2007 at 9:01 am
Hope nobody minds me butting in!the reality of Design in nature. Both the physicists and biologists like dawkins acknowledge the evidence for design
No, they have said that things APPEAR designed. Something appearing to be a certain way is not necessarily evidence that it IS a certain way.
Dawkins criticises an atheist philosepher for being so naive in dismissing the need for an answer to this evidence
His criticism was intended to point out the fact that answers are needed to refute this APPEARANCE, so that people did not think it was genuine evidence. As you yourself demonstrate, such answers were clearly needed.
Another example you're probably familiar with is Darwin, who stated that the eye was tremendously complex and APPEARED designed, but THEN went on to show how it wasn't.
The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution
So, you think that if 99.9% of fossil evidence does not exist, that is a 99.9% failure for evolution? How exactly? This seems a bizarre assertion to make. Also, it implys that you think the evidence we DO have supports evolution- Freudian slip? Anyway, the real issue is whether any of the fossil evidence we have argues against evolution, and it does not.
there exists no evidence that NS and RM can produce new characteristics or information.
Good grief. This has been covered so many times. I think Billy provided a list ages ago, I'm sure he could list the evidence again off the top of his head. But if you don't believe him, check out The Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula. Two websites of many.
it is logically possible that that Designer is not contingent or caused but is, in fact, Necessary.
It is also logically possible that a Designer is not necessary. Logic can be used to justify anything. That's where evidence comes in.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
35. Comment #53958 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hi quetz,you are most welcome. Thanks for sorting out the selfish gene stuff. As I suspected, it was just another YEC lie. Naivety used to make me use the word misrepresentation in the past. Lie is a much better word. Here is another lie I came across recently:
just checked the truth in science joke site, Apparently there is a new design feature in the eye - shame they have no evidence of ths claim, I checked the flagellum page http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
they cite this paper as evidence that the flagellum gave rise to the ttss and not the otherway around http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
thet say
The authors disagree with the idea that the flagellum has evolved from the TTSS, and write that TTSS genes are "derived from" (p. 7120) flagellar genes. There is some evidence that the simpler structure of the TTSS could have evolved from the more complex structure of the flagellum, not vice versa.
However, the paper actually says
"The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20)."
The paper also points out that some proteins are not necessary for flagellar function, further reducing its complexity.
Typical lying fundies!
Originally posted here
Other Comments by BillySands
36. Comment #53963 by NoLongerHaveBelief on July 4, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Hi Billy. Great posting as per.I finished TGD at Christmas. I enjoyed it so much, that today I went into Waterstones at purchased:
1) TGD on CD x 6
2) Origin of Species as read by Professor Dawkins, on CD
3) Also got a free copy of War of The Worlds CD (1967). [There is a 3 CD Audiobooks for 2 at Waterstones, at the moment!].
TGD on CD is ACE! You get to hear all the inflexions that Professor Dawkins WANTS you to read. I highly recommend it. And the professors' lovely wife adds a great addition to the CD's, for variance of tone.
Warm Regards, to all believers and non-believers.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
37. Comment #53967 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hi NLHB How are you these days? Those CDs sound great
Billy
Other Comments by BillySands
38. Comment #53981 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution
Come to think about it, he cant be a very good designer if only 0.1% of his designs are capable of surviving :-)
Other Comments by BillySands
39. Comment #53986 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 4:44 pm
NLHB:TGD on CD is ACE! You get to hear all the inflexions that Professor Dawkins WANTS you to read. I highly recommend it.Yes, the voices add a light hearted feeling. I like the way Dawkins says, "That's an argument?!" and "barking mad."
Don't you think it would be fun to have the Dawkins' over for an evening? Maybe to watch "Meaning of Life" or something.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
40. Comment #54032 by Philip1978 on July 5, 2007 at 2:55 am
gimlibengloin, "Well if evolution was true the Bible would be false."
I would like to take you up on a small challenge if that's ok?
Thing is I find the Bible to be incredibly false, mainly due to its numerous translations, revisions by a multitude of authors. I am convinced more and more that many of its stories have been plagiarised by its authors from other religions such as Buddhism, Judaism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Pagan Religions. Its historically inaccurate, it has many contradictions and there is more evidence to show that most of its characters, especially Jesus, never existed.
How for example did Jesus get born twice? He was either born in about 6BC and about 4AD in, according to the authors, Nazareth. Nazareth has been dated by some of the best (and worst!) archaeologists in the world to be from around the 2nd Century onwards, so how can he have been born there? After all before the 2nd Century it was being used as a cemetery, hardly the right place to bring up a kid, esp the son of a deity!
I could go on for ages but back to my request for I am interested to see if you can tell me of any historical evidence, other than the Bible, for Jesus of Nazareth existing. I have read about many people called Jesus for whom there is evidence, the closest one to crucifixion was a chap called Jesus ben Stada but he was crucified in the early 2nd century in Lydda, 25 miles from Jerusalem. I have been reading a lot about this lately but I am curious to see if there is any evidence that I have not yet uncovered and would like your opinion on it as I am interested in this subject.
Be great to hear from you,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
41. Comment #54274 by Wadsworth on July 6, 2007 at 8:12 am
The YECs here are indulging in their usual game of changing the meaning of a word or term if its suits them. They say there are no transitional forms and therefore Archaeopteryx cannot be one;so what would they call a transitional form?Presumably not a creature with a bird-like beak but reptile-like teeth? Or a hairy mammal with grasping hands and tool-using ability that looks sort of like a human, but obviously is not one?
Definitions please?
Other Comments by Wadsworth
42. Comment #54275 by Wadsworth on July 6, 2007 at 8:16 am
The YECs here cannot possibly admit to biological evolution, because it would be the logical extension of abiogenesis,or chemical evolution. That in turn would be the logical extension of cosmic evolution,-which would therefore explain the fine-tuned constants as optimum measurements resulting from cosmic natural selection,--and therefore no God required;-and that would never do. Honesty please?Other Comments by Wadsworth
43. Comment #54276 by pewkatchoo on July 6, 2007 at 8:24 am
OK, I have had enough of the bible pushers. If every word of the bible is true, why did god allow the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and the Norse and all the other peoples of the earth to develop their own gods for so long before intervening with a sudden decision to 'set the record straight'? Now, presumably all the above cited civilisations were all decended from Adam and Eve and yet narry a one of them carried the story of a single god who was responsible for all creation. Not one of these polytheistic religions comes up with a story even close to the creationist story of the bible! Nothing handed down from Caine and his children!? Are you willing to accept that? Even The Lord of the Rings has the Silmarilion to back it up. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
44. Comment #54277 by pewkatchoo on July 6, 2007 at 8:31 am
More dishonesty. The Yeccies (or should that be yuckies) keep harping on about missing links without addressing the fact that all the fossils found are links in and of themselves. As Professor Dawkins states, we are lucky to have the fossils that we do have. It is very likely that there were many more dinosaurs around than have actually been found. Exactly how many complete fossils of T-Rex have been found for example? Not a lot I hazard. Or what about the smaller dynasaurs, probably even less of them.All this nonsense about Archaeopteryx is a red-herring (or should that be a red-parrot).
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
45. Comment #54289 by gimlibengloin on July 6, 2007 at 9:29 am
Wheww!! Too many responses so I'm going to have to ignore everyone except Billy and Phillip1978.I'll start with Phillip1978 and respond to Billy in a few days as i have limited access.
Phillip1978
"Thing is I find the Bible to be incredibly false, mainly due to its numerous translations, revisions by a multitude of authors. I am convinced more and more that many of its stories have been plagiarised by its authors from other religions such as Buddhism, Judaism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Pagan Religions. Its historically inaccurate, it has many contradictions and there is more evidence to show that most of its characters, especially Jesus, never existed."
Have to disagree here but I'm sure you'll admit that in this first paragraph you offer your opinion and specific examples come later. I am amazed by the suggestion that jesus never existed though. Even if the gospels etc were all we had they would easily be enough to establish his historical existence as the personality of jesus is on every page.
"How for example did Jesus get born twice? He was either born in about 6BC and about 4AD in, according to the authors, Nazareth. Nazareth has been dated by some of the best (and worst!) archaeologists in the world to be from around the 2nd Century onwards, so how can he have been born there?"
I'm confused as to what you mean here as by "authors" I think you mean Matthew and Luke yet they state "Bethlehem" was his birthplace.
If you desire a short but detailed treatment of historical evidences for Jesus outside of the NT then Google for The Open Bible Trust who provide a downloadable booklet by Michael Penny.
regards,
GBG
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
46. Comment #54424 by gimlibengloin on July 7, 2007 at 2:47 am
Billy Sands (33)"Really? I haven't read much of the blind watchmaker, although my peers discussed it a lot (Richard forgive me). I think you actually mean interpretation, not evidence."
You're argument here appears to be the same as Quetzacoatl above who asserts:
"No, they have said that things APPEAR designed. Something appearing to be a certain way is not necessarily evidence that it IS a certain way."
Of course this is a pretty weak argument as for something to appear designed it must have the qualities of things that we know are designed and this is acknowledged by Dawkins et al. Similarly, as Davies and Hoyle and Hawking have pointed out it is highly improbable mathematically that the physical constants of the universe are the result of chance.
"Like I say, Evolution argues against design. The fact that the universe is so huge with so many planets and is so old and the fact that humans have only been around for an insignificant fraction of this time argue against design - I can see where your need to deny science comes from though."
This is really poor, Billy, especially for an intellectual like yourself. None of these examples even touch upon the question of design. In fact, short of some further elabaoration by your good self they don't even contradict Genesis.
"ant a bet? look up opsin gene duplication and mutation. Look up selective breeding - look what can happen is only a few years - imagine you had billions to play with."
Well, I've yet to do this but in regard to selective breeding as Phillip Johnson has pointed out this is the purposeful work of intelligent human beings so the analogy to NS is flawed to say the least. Similarly, your appeal to'imagination'further serves to highlight the weakness of your case. This is not about lack of imagination its about lack of evidence - evidence for evolution.
"Em no. this is really poor reasoning - considering you have not provided any evidence against evolution or indeed considered other possibilities - like the multiverse or the universe always existing in some form. It appears that you want there to be a designer, so you have logic filters in place."
Not at all. It is the scientists like Hawking, Hoyle, and Davies who are admitting that it is as if a super-intellect has been playing around with the laws of physics. I've simply shown that the attempt to dismiss a Designer by asking where did it come from is flawed. The evidence leads to a designer and the arguments against a designer are false. I don't dny you can come up with alternatives but I deny that they are the most reasonable.
"hat a total lie. Is this the best that you can do? I really am offended by this"
I can only go on the evidence you provide Billy and the example of chimps was an ad hoc explanation. If you can do better then feel free to do so.
"h the old tactic of trying to exagerate differences. The view you refer to is by no means mainstream,or even very well supported - I presume this is why you have not presented an anatomical challenge - going stroppy and stamping your feet will not give archaeopteryx an anapsid skull for example"
Nope, 99.9% of fossilevidence for evolution isn't there and the best examples eg Archaeopteryx are questionable. For a specialist to say it is no more than a perching bird is a denial of the claims you're making
kind regards
GBG
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
47. Comment #54444 by BillySands on July 7, 2007 at 6:23 am
Of course this is a pretty weak argument as for something to appear designed it must have the qualities of things that we know are designedWhat? like something that has straight lines and repreating pattern? Like a copper sulphate crystal or a snow flake - oops, they're not designed, they just form
Similarly, as Davies and Hoyle and Hawking have pointed out it is highly improbable mathematically that the physical constants of the universe are the result of chance.And? Who says we may not think differently one day? How is that evidence of a so called relational god? Its hardly up there with seeing him now is it. It really is just an arguement from ignorance.
This is really poor, Billy, especially for an intellectual like yourself. None of these examples even touch upon the question of design. In fact, short of some further elabaoration by your good self they don't even contradict Genesis.
Wll, if you think it is poor, then you are the one who needs to say why. Genesis says the universe (which is small) came into being over 6 days and that the sun was made after the earth - how is that not contradictory? Which of these 2 scenarios are more likely if the universe was designed?
1) The universe is young, contains one planet, and the oldest rocks contain fossilised remains of modern creatures.
2) the universe is 14 billion years old, there are billions of planets and the earliest known life (which is simple) occurs in old rocks that formed 10-11 billion years after the beginning of time. Furthermore, there are radically different life forms in different rock layers, with some forms linking different groups?
Well, I've yet to do this but in regard to selective breeding as Phillip Johnson has pointed out this is the purposeful work of intelligent human beings so the analogy to NS is flawed to say the least. Similarly, your appeal to'imagination'further serves to highlight the weakness of your case. This is not about lack of imagination its about lack of evidence - evidence for evolution.
strange comment to say the least considering your confession that you have not looked at the evidence. Not suprisingly, you miss the point. Selective breeding shows that large changes can happen in a very short period of time. So, imagine red deer go extinct and wolves then need to rely on prolific, smaller and faster prey, we know that is possible - it's called a greyhound!
Not at all. It is the scientists like Hawking, Hoyle, and Davies who are admitting that it is as if a super-intellect has been playing around with the laws of physics. I've simply shown that the attempt to dismiss a Designer by asking where did it come from is flawed. The evidence leads to a designer and the arguments against a designer are false. I don't dny you can come up with alternatives but I deny that they are the most reasonable.
See above! Also, you need to state why demanding to know the origin of the designer is flawed. All you have done is give him some properties without any justification, so I'm not just going to take your word for it - evidence please!
Your designer seems very deceitful. i'm guessing he must think you are wasting your time (as do we) since he has not made his designing hand obvious - infact every time we modify an organism, we are effectively saying - that was a bad design, lets fix it (maybe that's why 99.9% of his designs are extinct) Do you believe he designed pathogens too? You really are just saying "wow, we exist, and this book tells me why" - I'll pass on that thanks
the example of chimps was an ad hoc explanation.
Dont try and deflect. Answer why we have an intrachromosomal telomere sequence that inverts. Do it in such a way that both denies evolution and provides evidence of a creator
Nope, 99.9% of fossilevidence for evolution isn't there and the best examples eg Archaeopteryx are questionable. For a specialist to say it is no more than a perching bird is a denial of the claims you're making
Again you fail to provide evidence. Who is this specialist? Well actually, I dont need to know, unlike theists, I make my own mind up about evidence and dont say it must be true because the milk man says so - and he has a goldfish so it must be true. The fact is that the fragment of the fossil record we have is in perfect harmony with evolution. Small samples are more prone to random error, but the fossil record is consistent.
Answer some of the other guy's points too - I would love to hear what you think a transitionl species should be
Other Comments by BillySands
48. Comment #54452 by bouwe on July 7, 2007 at 7:41 am
As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.
Ah, of course! You invoke Zero, Zilch and Nada, the Holy Trinity of Ignorance.
As 3X0=0 he hasn't added anything, but then again this would be a person who thinks 3X1=1 (because some guys in funny hats sitting around a table said so in the year 325CE or whatever).
Or perhaps it is a Magic Spell? You say it three times and the evidence disappears!
Other Comments by bouwe
49. Comment #54889 by Philip1978 on July 9, 2007 at 8:34 am
Dammit GBG, I had a whole passage just deleted as I was checking stuff!I was wrong to say Nazareth was the birthplace, thanks for pointing that out, but I still stand by my opinion that it was not there at the time of Jesus, it was a grave yard for the people who lived nearby in Jafa who were massacred by Emperor Trajan later on but more on that later I promise
I will have to get back to you tomorrow with a whole argument but I would like to thank you for the stuff you sent
The "Testimony" of Mara Bar-Serapion, I will explain more but I can't find Jesus in there, he mentions Pythagoras and Socrates by name, why not this "Wise Man" it refers to?
Tacitus, wow, now that has got me thinking, my initial thoughts are directed the group Christiani, who were part of the Jewish Revolt in 66 to 73 which fits with Nero's reign of 54 to 68 but give me more time tomorrow
Right, I have to go home, catch you tomorrow,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
50. Comment #55402 by Philip1978 on July 11, 2007 at 2:57 am
GBGHello at last! I did post something last night but it went weird on me and I was too tired to do it again!
Right, I will press on, hopefully not making howlingly stupid errors about where Jesus was born but rather where he grew up ( History and English grad, what do you expect!)
Right, I said I was going to provide evidence on why I think Jesus did not exist so here goes, I think first I will concentrate on Nazareth where he grew up and move on from there.
According to the Bible this is what Luke has to say on it
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)
Now if I am correct Jesus grew up around the start of the 1st century, ok its highly debatable as to exactly when this happened because Matthew and Luke cannot agree on that but that is for a later discussion.
My problem is this, after having read a few articles here and there on the internet and then discovering a book by Kenneth Humphreys, Jesus Never Existed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been pretty harsh for Jesus growing up in that area.
Humphreys argues that there was a place not far from the site of present day Nazareth called Japha. He states that up until the year 67, when Emperor Trajan demolished them, Japha had been using the site of Nazareth as a burial ground and evidence of a cemetery have been found. Don't you think it would have been a little harsh growing up in a graveyard? (I suppose since JC was able to raise the dead, company would have not been a problem! hehehe please excuse me, that was juvenile, I can't help it!)
My other big problem is the name Nazareth's connection to Jesus does not appear until the 4th Century on anything I have looked at, I could be wrong, as I said before, I am only beginning to learn about all this. Thing is The Old Testament makes no reference to it, the Talmud, Jewish History and Law book mentions Galilee and 63 towns inside and around it, but no Nazareth. There are records of a Itinerarium Burdigalens that Humphreys refers to, a Pilgrim from Bordeaux who anonymously left a document dated to 333 AD showing where the route went. This person goes through Jerusalem and Bethlehem amongst other places, yet again he does not pass through the "City" that his saviour grew up in, why?
Now, Matthew wrote this in his gospel:
"...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)
The Nazarenes were a break off group from the Jewish group the Essenes from around the 2nd century AD. According to some bits I have read they were followers who took their beliefs from the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament refers to a "Nazarite" in Judges 13.5, translated from the Hebrew means 'One how vows to grow his hair long and serve God' and Matthew amazingly manages to turn this around so that the prophesy comes true by making him a Nazarene to imply that the Nazareth story fits. I personally think that is a little fabricated to say the least, what do you think? Hang on, wait a minute, isn't that above quote from the book of Judges about Samson? Have I found an error? Time to start brushing up on your evolution I think! hehehehe
How did Nazareth get its name? Humphreys says this:
It seems that, along with the Nozerim, a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – 'the Poor' (later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – 'The Gospel to the Hebrews'. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or Nazarene!
In other words, when it came to the crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)
Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village 'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty
Right, I have wiffled for long enough, I will go and look at the stuff you gave me and get back to you, though I may just concentrate on the Tacitus stuff because I cant see Jesus of Nazareth in that Testimony, I only see the words "wise man" alongside Socrates and Pythagoras, doesn't make sense to say that is proof of his existence
I quoted most of what I have typed from http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ and also the book itself should you wish to read more.
I will hunt for other books at some point, I don't like just relying on one source, even though Humphreys uses many sources of his own.
Hope you find this interesting and I would love to hear your comments on this, as I said before, I am here to learn and understand and well as wiffle hehe!
take care,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
1. Comment #52896 by rnewson on June 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Other Comments by rnewson