Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[I'mConvinced]

This thread needs something more.....

https://www.boredpanda.com/how-animals-were-created-god-funny-animal-tweets/

 

 

[Podo]

21 hours ago, Will Due said:

Well, there is a God.

And all of you know it.

Because if he didn't exist, all of you wouldn't be thinking about him ALL DAY LONG. 

You're wrong, but probably not in the way you think. No, most of us do not "know" there is a deity, because there's no evidence of one and therefore it makes no sense in believing in one. Spending time thinking about one in no way betrays belief in such things, for the same reason that someone being really into celtic mythology betrays belief in the celtic gods, or an interest in Spiderman and the fictional Marvel universe betrays a belief in Spiderman. For me, religion is fascinating from a historical and sociological perspective, no different than my interest in general history, war history, anthropology, or linguistics. Having an interest in religion and spending time discussing it can be entirely separate from belief in that thing.

[+Hammerclaw]

7 minutes ago, Podo said:

You're wrong, but probably not in the way you think. No, most of us do not "know" there is a deity, because there's no evidence of one and therefore it makes no sense in believing in one. Spending time thinking about one in no way betrays belief in such things, for the same reason that someone being really into celtic mythology betrays belief in the celtic gods, or an interest in Spiderman and the fictional Marvel universe betrays a belief in Spiderman. For me, religion is fascinating from a historical and sociological perspective, no different than my interest in general history, war history, anthropology, or linguistics. Having an interest in religion and spending time discussing it can be entirely separate from belief in that thing.

Well said. "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra"

[Will Due]

57 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well said. "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra"

 

The barbaric tribe of truth is on the rise, and no one will stop it.

It's barbaric to all who prefer the sharp edge of a picket fence to sit on in their discomfort, and much worse for those who flee the light of truth in their futility to the darkness of their moving shadows.

See the squirming going on in the world? Yup, it's barbaric for them. Especially when they keep trying in their desperation to turn off the light of truth  that now cannot ever be switched off.

It's the law of nature and it's by design. Evolve or perish.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

12 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The barbaric tribe of truth is on the rise, and no one will stop it.

It's barbaric to all who prefer the sharp edge of a picket fence to sit on in their discomfort, and much worse for those who flee the light of truth in their futility to the darkness of their moving shadows.

See the squirming going on in the world? Yup, it's barbaric for them. Especially when they keep trying in their desperation to turn off the light of truth  that now cannot ever be switched off.

It's the law of nature and it's by design. Evolve or perish.

 

 

Will, you display thoroughly parochial attitude toward everyone you encounter, here. The quote exemplifies it and the above post simply reinforces the assessment. You're like a small town boy wandering around in the heart of New York city, bewildered and unable to understand the riot of myriad cultures and peoples around you, unwilling to comprehend why they don't think and act as you do. You should embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and start talking to people and not at them. 

[Will Due]

29 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Will, you display thoroughly parochial attitude toward everyone you encounter, here. The quote exemplifies it and the above post simply reinforces the assessment. You're like a small town boy wandering around in the heart of New York city, bewildered and unable to understand the riot of myriad cultures and peoples around you, unwilling to comprehend why they don't think and act as you do. You should embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and start talking to people and not at them. 

 

Thanks for your advice.

 

 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

This thread needs something more.....

https://www.boredpanda.com/how-animals-were-created-god-funny-animal-tweets/

 

 

That is HILLARIOUS!!!!!!! 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

19 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Universe is fine-tuned for life.

The exemples are plenty, as Martin Rees explains:

• N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 10³⁶. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.^[12]
• Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.^[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.^[10][12]
• Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.^[12][14]
• Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10⁻¹²².^[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.^[12]
• Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10⁻⁵. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.^[12]
• D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.^[12]

Of course life is adapted to the conditions of this universe. This doesn't prove a god/gods, all it proves is that life is adated to live in the universe where it lives. Not very surprising is it ?

[Only_]

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yeah.... Nah. 

 

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book.

You can it read it here:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent
years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The claim is that in the space of
possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of
intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases
of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well
as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by
Victor Stenger’s recent bookThe Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed
for Us. Stenger claims that all known fine-tuning cases can be explained without the need
for a multiverse. Many of Stenger’s claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will
touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and
symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation
and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation;
the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world;
the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also
provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I
do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent
life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger’s book, or read independently.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[+joc]

On 2/8/2018 at 0:12 AM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I recently came across this excellent book by Perry Marshall. It pretty much bridge the gap between neo-darwinism and intelligent design, giving birth to what should be named Evolution 2.0. It's the theory of intelligent Design on steroids - evolutionary creation of the Universe - giving us a picture that makes a lot more sense than a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.

 

It's time to reopen the debate once more.

Whoever said the Universe was a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.  Everything in this universe is of a circular design.  Spinning circles.  What is random about that.  But it in no way means that an Energy Field outside of the Universe caused another Energy field that had never previously existed to miraculously exist.  There is Energy...and in it is infinite in it's depth and latitude.

This Universe is eons old...and we haven't the foggiest idea how big it is or how long it has been in existence.

 

[Only_]

Just now, joc said:

Whoever said the Universe was a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.

 

Neo-Darwnism.

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Neo-Darwnism.

I don't know Neo.   Probably a nice guy...I don't know.

What I do know is that I have a brain.  That brain has thoughts of its own.  The one's that make sense when I think them are the ones I allow to hang out in my head.  My head.  My thoughts.  Try it sometime.

[GlitterRose]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That is HILLARIOUS!!!!!!! 

What have they got for the duck-billed platypus?

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Neo-Darwnism.

You can do better than that.

[I'mConvinced]

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

What have they got for the duck-billed platypus?

God - And our work here is complete! Hang on, what's that? 

Angel - Hmm, oh that! Nothing important, must have missed some bits when I was screwing the other animals together. 

God - Listen, Dad said make sure to use ALL the bits...

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

On 2/9/2018 at 1:58 PM, Will Due said:

 

The barbaric tribe of truth is on the rise, and no one will stop it.

It's barbaric to all who prefer the sharp edge of a picket fence to sit on in their discomfort, and much worse for those who flee the light of truth in their futility to the darkness of their moving shadows.

See the squirming going on in the world? Yup, it's barbaric for them. Especially when they keep trying in their desperation to turn off the light of truth  that now cannot ever be switched off.

It's the law of nature and it's by design. Evolve or perish.

 

 

 

[Will Due]

30 minutes ago, davros of skaro said:

 

 

Friggin hilarious!

I've never been so cleaned up in my life. 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Will Due

[psyche101]

On 10/02/2018 at 3:37 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book.

You can it read it here:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent
years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The claim is that in the space of
possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of
intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases
of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well
as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by
Victor Stenger’s recent bookThe Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed
for Us. Stenger claims that all known fine-tuning cases can be explained without the need
for a multiverse. Many of Stenger’s claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will
touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and
symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation
and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation;
the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world;
the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also
provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I
do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent
life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger’s book, or read independently.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

And Stenger shut him back down again 

Quote

Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning
Victor J. Stenger
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
January 28, 2012
Abstract
In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the 
Universe is Not Designed for Us. It investigated a common claim found in 
contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology 
are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the 
universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of 
life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters,
some form of life could have evolved over a parameter range that is not 
infinitesimal, as often claimed. Postdoctoral fellow Luke Barnes has written a 
lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning 
problem. I have no significant disagreement with that literature and no 
prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions. Barnes 
does not invalidate these conclusions and misunderstands and misrepresents 
much of what is in the book.
1. Introduction
In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the 
Universe is Not Designed for Us.
1 It investigated a common claim found in 
contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology 
are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the 
universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of 
life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters,

 

 

We can exchange links all day long, all that proves us you don't understand that arguments so you post swathes of text getting others to speak fir you. I really doubt you understand the arguments or even the philosophy behind them, I think you just hear what you want to hear and run with it. 

 

Why would a god have to make a fine tuned universe at all? If truly the all powerful being he is claimed to be then he could create anything to exist anywhere, what would be proof of a creator would be an impossible situation, life existing where it should not. 

Not where it should. 

Like I said, go for a stroll in venus and tell us how fine tuned it is for life. 

 

Sean Carroll. Nuff said. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/11/physicist-sean-carroll-dismisses-fine-tuning-argument/

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3057

 

1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
2. Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
3. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.
4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.
5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed. [Carroll considers this his most important point. Here he goes into not only the cosmos, but the nature of human culture which, Carroll avers, comports much better with naturalism than with theism. 

 

 

The fine tuned universe argument is just another godidit ramble with enough technical terms to bamboozle the average listener. I consider it intellectual bullying of proper science aimed at the average person. Its a rubbish argument that would have proved itself by now like the natural universe has with the discovery of the Higgs Boson if it had any merit at all. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by psyche101

[SeekerWCF]

On 2/8/2018 at 7:23 AM, jmccr8 said:

Well that falls into mutation to adapt to conditions favorable to maintain life. The purpose of life is to create more life so then that life adapts to it's environment becausr that is what evolution does.

jmccr8

That is not what evolution does. Life does not adapt, it simply stops existing if it didn't reproduce. Then there is enough variation in muatations that hopefully one of those variations has something about it that can survive the circumstamces that killed its brethren off or allowed it to reproduce better thereby passing on this trait. We must be very careful to understand that natural selection is environment driven and biologically random. Then people can maybe able to understand why complexity grows from humongous amounts of chaos and unsuccessful life.

Edited February 11, 2018 by SeekerWCF

[SeekerWCF]

On 2/9/2018 at 1:56 AM, psyche101 said:

Try leaving earth's atmosphere and see how fine tuned for life it is 

Or a visit to venus 

Or pluto 

Or Jupiter 

...... 

My spaceship and suit will certainly be fine tuned by intelligence. There are actually many more parameters that are fine tuned than most people realize. It's the driving reason Lenord Suskind has his cosmic landscape theory. Either we live in an eternal multiverse or intelligent design is most likely true. Haveing tried to measure the curvature of the universe, scientists can find no curvature, which means it's at least 14 trillion light years in diameter if it is curved, but all results look like it's flat. This is a win for Suskind, because it looks like there is plenty of room for enough uninterested to acomodate the quastions of the anthropic principle. 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, SeekerWCF said:

My spaceship and suit will certainly be fine tuned by intelligence.

By our intelligence, and that evolved,  and even then that's a hopeful claim you make. Venus has places where its so hot that chemical bonds break down, not sure parts of it will ever be accessible beyond what telescopic lenses and multi spectral devices can tell us. 

Quote

There are actually many more parameters that are fine tuned than most people realize. It's the driving reason Lenord Suskind has his cosmic landscape theory. Either we live in an eternal multiverse or intelligent design is most likely true.

Providing all the possibilities is how we eliminate them. Susskind clearly advocates the multiverse theory over intelligent design, here he is saying the universe itself evolved naturally just like anything in it and that a tiny fraction of beings being able to live in certain favourable conditions is not all that special in a universe with so many probabilities. 

Quote

Haveing tried to measure the curvature of the universe, scientists can find no curvature, which means it's at least 14 trillion light years in diameter if it is curved, but all results look like it's flat. This is a win for Suskind, because it looks like there is plenty of room for enough uninterested to acomodate the quastions of the anthropic principle. 

And yet he makes the comments above clearly rejecting an intelligent design. 

ID only pushes the questions back further and accomplish nothing. It keeps coming around to who designed the designer and we get 

The anthropic principle extends to all intelligent life. Wouldn't you consider your conclusions premature considering we don't know the parameters for all life yet? 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, SeekerWCF said:

That is not what evolution does. Life does not adapt, it simply stops existing if it didn't reproduce. Then there is enough variation in muatations that hopefully one of those variations has something about it that can survive the circumstamces that killed its brethren off or allowed it to reproduce better thereby passing on this trait. We must be very careful to understand that natural selection is environment driven and biologically random. Then people can maybe able to understand why complexity grows from humongous amounts of chaos and unsuccessful life.

That sounds like your saying species are destined to go extinct due to environmental conditions unless a mutation occurs, which I'm sure you don't mean, as successful mutations allow new species to outcompete the previous generations with their new adaptions allowing them the advantage. Which is how we get the illusion of intelligent design. It's very much trial and error on a grand scale. From our perspective the trial and error bit isn't apparent. 

[SeekerWCF]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

By our intelligence, and that evolved,  and even then that's a hopeful claim you make. Venus has places where its so hot that chemical bonds break down, not sure parts of it will ever be accessible beyond what telescopic lenses and multi spectral devices can tell us. 

Providing all the possibilities is how we eliminate them. Susskind clearly advocates the multiverse theory over intelligent design, here he is saying the universe itself evolved naturally just like anything in it and that a tiny fraction of beings being able to live in certain favourable conditions is not all that special in a universe with so many probabilities. 

And yet he makes the comments above clearly rejecting an intelligent design. 

ID only pushes the questions back further and accomplish nothing. It keeps coming around to who designed the designer and we get 

The anthropic principle extends to all intelligent life. Wouldn't you consider your conclusions premature considering we don't know the parameters for all life yet? 

Of course. That's the point.

I never said Suskind didn't reject intelligent design, but he also rejected dismissing the anthropic principle so easyily, but you would have to read his book to get the details of why, that is why his theory is so robust. 

A designer is perfectly capable of evolving just as we did. In fact, when are capable of designing a true artificial environment, we will be designers.

[SeekerWCF]

54 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That sounds like your saying species are destined to go extinct due to environmental conditions unless a mutation occurs, which I'm sure you don't mean, as successful mutations allow new species to outcompete the previous generations with their new adaptions allowing them the advantage. Which is how we get the illusion of intelligent design. It's very much trial and error on a grand scale. From our perspective the trial and error bit isn't apparent. 

Well... we have a successful series of mutations call intelligence that prevents us from going instinct. Intelligence, however if we blow ourselves up with it, then it wasn't very successful at all now was it. Evolution does not look to me to be evidence of intelligent design, but the uncertainty principle surely does. 

The great filter was probably the extremely rare combination that gave us DNA. 

 

[+joc]

"Psyche101:

That sounds like your saying species are destined to go extinct due to environmental conditions unless a mutation occurs, which I'm sure you don't mean, as successful mutations allow new species to outcompete the previous generations with their new adaptions allowing them the advantage. Which is how we get the illusion of intelligent design. It's very much trial and error on a grand scale. From our perspective the trial and error bit isn't apparent"

Thanks Psyche...for all of that.

If I could just instruct....from my own perspective....not to anyone in particular, but to all, or any, who care to listen:

Life is.   We don't really know where it originated.  It might have been on planet Earth...it might also have been from an Earth like habitat....millions of light years away.  We cannot know that.  It is quite, and very probable, that Life began somewhere else and migrated to Earth over eons and eons of time.   Considering that a planet that had life...somewhere in the galaxy or beyond...broke apart into billions or trillions of pieces...all going there separate ways through the galaxies....eventually being pulled into the gravity of the Earth experience.

Life...is not just human life.  It is not just insect life. It is not just plant life.  Life...is alive.  And like a seed planted in a fertile garden...it will emerge.

The idea that God created life on Earth...and that God created the Earth and the Trillions of Galaxies that make up the known Universe is only a Concept of the Human Mind.

What we know for sure from a Scientific standpoint, is that Energy cannot be destroyed...it cannot therefore either be Created.  It just is.   For us to conclude that God...created the heavens and the Earth...we must also conclude that the Energy of God existed Before the foundations of the Universe.  An Energy all alone, with no Universe.  Just Energy.  And that this Energy created Trillions of Galaxies and an otherwise Infinite Universe...for One purpose.  To create Human beings that would then be Judged on whether or not they Believed in such an Energy.  

It is totally understandable within the context of the Belief in God...but otherwise is un-explicable in its naivety  of the known Universe...much less the Un-known Universe.

We cannot know...we cannot even begin to know...the origin of the Universe or what caused its existence.  

Everything we can even begin to imagine is forced therefore to be judged against that which we can Know.  

The only thing we know that is actually Real...aligns itself with the Laws of Physics.  

Edited February 12, 2018 by joc