I watched some of your video and saw that it was not addressing the science... it was engaging in philosohpy. This excerpt addresses your snowflake argument... but the link also explains the science in a different part of the essay. On philosophical grounds... your snowflake argument is weak... "Elaboration of Likelihood Principle According to the likelihood principle, an event or state of affairs E counts as evidence in favor of an hypothesis H1 over H2 if E is more probable under H1 than H2, with the degree of support proportional to the ratio of probabilities under the two respective hypotheses.[6] The likelihood principle shows why an ink splotch that looks like the face of Abraham Lincoln would support the idea that the splotch was designed, whereas a splotch of random looking ink marks would not. Although the exact details of both kinds of ink marks are highly improbable under the chance hypothesis, only in the former case are the ink marks not highly improbable under the design hypothesis. One common objection to our likelihood account of why these features count as evidence, which is based on a misunderstanding, is that we are merely arguing from the purported improbability of the existence of one of the above features under naturalism (or the naturalistic single-universe hypothesis). Then the objection goes, very improbable events occur all the time. For example, the exact pattern of any ink splotch is very improbable--never to be repeated in the history of human beings--and yet most of them do not signal design. The premises of the likelihood version of the design argument, however, are not merely that the existence of certain features of the universe are improbable (or surprising) under naturalism or the naturalistic single-universe hypothesis, but that they are also not very improbable (or surprising) under theism. As we saw in above example of the Lincoln-like ink splotch, both of these conditions are necessary for one to claim that these features support theism over naturalism using the likelihood principle.[7] It is critical to point out that the sort of probability used here is not statistical probability, since this would require that the universe be generated by some physical process that churns out life-permitting universes at some relative frequency, contrary to the assumption of typical forms of naturalism that claim the universe is simply a brute fact. Rather, the probability used here is what philosophers call epistemic probability, which can be thought of as a measure of rational degrees of expectation. For example, when scientists say that the theory of evolution is probably true, they are clearly not talking about statistical probability: they are not referring to some repeatable trial in which the theory turns out true with some relative frequency. Rather, they are saying something to the effect that given the total body of available evidence, a rational person should expect that the theory of evolution is true. Put in terms of epistemic probability, the likelihood principle can be reworded in terms of degrees of expectation instead of probability, in which case it becomes what I call the expectation principle. According to the expectation principle, if an event or state of affairs E is more to be expected under one hypothesis H1 than another H2, it counts as evidence in favor of H1 over H2--that is, in favor of the hypothesis under which it has the highest expectation. The strength of the evidence is proportional to the relative degree to which it is more to be expected under H1 than H2. Rewording the likelihood principle in this way is particularly helpful for those trained in the sciences, who are not familiar with epistemic probability and therefore tend to confuse it with other kinds of probability, even when they are aware of the distinction. Given this rewording, the central premises of our argument become that the various features of the universe mentioned above are very surprising (unexpected) under naturalism (or the naturalistic single-universe hypothesis), but not under theism, and thus they provide evidence for theism over naturalism. One might question this use of epistemic probability on the grounds that it is merely subjective. One response to this objection is that epistemic probability is used, and needed, for many widely accepted inferences in everyday life and science. For example, as the above quotation by Edward Dodson illustrates, the support for the thesis of common ancestry (evolution) is based the claim that a variety of features of the world--such as the structure of the tree of life--would not be improbable if evolution is true, but would be very improbable under the other viable nonevolutionary hypotheses, such as special creation. This improbability is not statistical improbability, nor can it be justified by an appeal to statistical improbability, since we have no statistics regarding the relative frequency of life on a planet having these features under either the evolutionary hypothesis or some nonevolutionary hypothesis. Neither do we have any model from which to derive those statistics. Thus, if it were a statistical probability, it would be completely unjustified. Rather, it should be understood as a form of epistemic probability--e.g., as claiming that various features of the world would be very unexpected under the various contender nonevolutionary hypotheses, but not under the evolutionary hypothesis. Further, since we have no statistical models on which to base our judgments of epistemic probability (especially for the nonevolutionary hypotheses), I contend that these judgments of epistemic probability are not rigorously justified. Rather, after (hopefully) doing the best job of looking at the evidence, scientists and laypersons make judgments of what kind of world we should expect under each hypothesis, and then they simply trust these judgments. This sort of trust in our judgments of epistemic probability--that is, what we should rationally expect under various hypotheses--is a pervasive and indispensable feature of our intellectual life. This same kind of reasoning is what is going on in the likelihood rendition of our argument: we look at the various features of the universe mentioned above, and judge that they are very surprising under naturalism, but not under theism. Then, as in the case of evolution, after a careful analysis of the evidence, we trust our judgments of epistemic probability in deciding the strength of the evidence. What if someone does not share these judgments of epistemic probability? One can either appeal to how widely shared these judgments are by those who are relevantly informed, or one can attempt to provide a deeper justification of them. In this regard, it should be noted that the judgment that features of the universe such as beauty and discoverability are surprising under naturalism is widely shared by intelligent, informed individuals, as some of the scientists and philosophers cited above illustrate. I believe, however, that a more rigorous, deeper justification can be offered.[8] For example, in the case of the fine-tuning for life, I base the claim that an (intelligent) life-permitting universe is very surprising under the naturalistic single-universe hypothesis on the relative smallness of the range of the parameters of physics that allow for embodied, intelligent life, along with a revised version of the probabilistic principle of indifference. My point here, however, is that although such justification is nice to have, even if it were not offered, that should not undermine the claim that the above features provide evidence, via the likelihood principle, for theism over naturalism, just as it does not in the analogous scientific cases...." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robin_collins/design.html
you just did it again. you quoted a philosopher to explain science. and a religious one at that: Robin Collins is an American philosopher. He currently serves as Professor of Philosophy at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. His main interests include issues in science and religion and theories of atonement. jem you are a funny dude. you claim you are only interested in the science then you proced to demand evidence for a negative. you want me provide evidence that something that has never been seen and never left any traces and is falsified by the very book it is described in does not exist. at the same time you demand that science provide every detail right now for the natural process that every credible scientist finds the evidence leads to. face it. without prior indoctrination what educated person would come up with such silly ideas as as god picked up a handful of dust and created man from it and then while man was sleeping god took a rib from the man and made a woman.
wow are you trolling.... read the link... it gives you the some of the science. I told you I was knocking out your snowflake argument and told you to read the link for the science. You want the science for the 100th time... here is some of it. "Fine-Tuning of Constants Next, consider the fine-tuning for life of the constants of physics. The constants of physics are fundamental numbers that when plugged into the laws of physics determine the basic structure of the universe. An example of a fundamental constant is Newton's gravitational constant G, which determines the strength of gravity via Newton's law F = Gm1m2/r2. Many of the fundamental constants must fall into a relatively narrow range in order for complex life to exist. To illustrate this fine-tuning, consider gravity. Using a standard measure of force strengths--which turns out to be roughly the relative strength of the various forces between two protons in a nucleus--gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040--or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion--times stronger than gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity a billion-fold, for instance, the force of gravity on a planet with the mass and size of the earth would be so great that organisms anywhere near the size of human beings, whether land-based or aquatic, would be crushed. (The strength of materials depends on the electromagnetic force via the fine-structure constant, which would not be affected by a change in gravity.) Even a much smaller planet of only 40 feet in diameter--which is not large enough to sustain organisms of our size--would have a gravitational pull of one thousand times that of earth, still too strong for organisms of our brain size, and hence level of intelligence, to exist. As astrophysicist Martin Rees notes, "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger" (2000, p. 30). Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of the strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), it is very small, being one part in ten thousand, billion, billion, billion. Indeed, other calculations show that stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years, as compared to our sun's lifetime of ten billion years, could not exist if gravity were increased by more than a factor of 3000. This would have significant intelligent-life-inhibiting consequences (see Collins, 2003). The most impressive case of fine-tuning for life is that of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is a term in Einstein's equation of general relativity that, when positive, acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. If it were too large, space would expand so rapidly that galaxies and stars could not form, and if too small, the universe would collapse before life could evolve. In today's physics, it is taken to correspond to the energy density of empty space. The fine-tuning for life of the cosmological constant is estimated to be at least one part in 10^53, that is, one part in a one hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. To get an idea of how precise this is, it would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the earth from outer space, and hitting a bull's-eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter, less than the size of an atom! Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a critic of fine-tuning, himself admits that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant is highly impressive (2001, p. 67; also, see Collins, 2003). Further examples of the fine-tuning for life of the fundamental constants of physics can also be given, such as that of mass difference between the neutron and the proton. If, for example, the mass of the neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40; Collins, 2003). Other Types of Fine-Tuning for Life Two other types of fine-tuning should be mentioned. One is that of the initial conditions of the universe, which refers to the fact that the initial distribution of mass-energy--as measured by entropy--must fall within an exceedingly narrow range for (intelligent) life to occur. According to Roger Penrose, one of Britain's leading theoretical physicists, "In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes" (Penrose, 1989, p. 343). How tiny is this volume? According to Penrose, if we let x =10^123, the volume of phase space would be about 1/10x of the entire volume. (p. 343). (Phase space is the space that physicists use to measure the various possible configurations of mass-energy of a system.) This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton given the entire visible universe were a dart board!.... " http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robin_collins/design.html read that quote form weinberg... his argument against fine tuning meaning a designer is based on the multiverse. The fine tuning is impressive. The most impressive case of fine-tuning for life is that of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is a term in Einstein's equation of general relativity that, when positive, acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. If it were too large, space would expand so rapidly that galaxies and stars could not form, and if too small, the universe would collapse before life could evolve. In today's physics, it is taken to correspond to the energy density of empty space. The fine-tuning for life of the cosmological constant is estimated to be at least one part in 10^53, that is, one part in a one hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. To get an idea of how precise this is, it would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the earth from outer space, and hitting a bull's-eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter, less than the size of an atom! Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a critic of fine-tuning, himself admits that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant is highly impressive (2001, p. 67; also, see Collins, 2003).
you want more scientific conclusions from noble prize winners... Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say âsupernaturalâ) plan.â - Arno Penzias (1933-present) The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.â - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry â...how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.â - Professor Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics [a field of science that deals with the very early universe], writing in the journal âScientific Americanâ.) âIf you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.â - Christian de Duve. âA Guided Tour of the Living Cellâ (Nobel laureate and organic chemist) http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/science-quotes/
Mumbo-jumbo? Funny, too funny. Oh, well.. I tried. If my posts are coming across as mumbo-jumbo to you it may be more a reflection on you than on me.
Yep. If no belief = belief (according to the creationist argument) then equally belief must = no belief. Which of course both propositions are absurd, but then that's creationists for you.
you forgot my request for one piece of evidence for anything supernatural. most likely because there never has been any found. like is said fos.
richter - you got sucked into Stu's word games... according to most recognized authorities... atheism is disbelief. Atheists state there is no God. if atheism were no belief.. there would be no need for agnostics.
jem is at it again. taking a quote and twisting it to fit his indoctrination without hearing what the guy is saying. do these guy sound like they believe "god did it" to you: Professor Steven Weinberg am not impressed with these supposed instances of fine-tuning. For instance, one of the most frequently quoted examples of fine-tuning has to do with a property of the nucleus of the carbon atom. The matter left over from the first few minutes of the universe was almost entirely hydrogen and helium, with virtually none of the heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen that seem to be necessary for life. The heavy elements that we find on earth were built up hundreds of millions of years later in a first generation of stars, and then spewed out into the interstellar gas out of which our solar system eventually formed. The first step in the sequence of nuclear reactions that created the heavy elements in early stars is usually the formation of a carbon nucleus out of three helium nuclei. There is a negligible chance of producing a carbon nucleus in its normal state (the state of lowest energy) in collisions of three helium nuclei, but it would be possible to produce appreciable amounts of carbon in stars if the carbon nucleus could exist in a radioactive state with an energy roughly 7 million electron volts (MeV) above the energy of the normal state, matching the energy of three helium nuclei, but (for reasons I'll come to presently) not more than 7.7 MeV above the normal state. This radioactive state of a carbon nucleus could be easily formed in stars from three helium nuclei. After that, there would be no problem in producing ordinary carbon; the carbon nucleus in its radioactive state would spontaneously emit light and turn into carbon in its normal nonradioactive state, the state found on earth. The critical point in producing carbon is the existence of a radioactive state that can be produced in collisions of three helium nuclei. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Christian de Duve With wide-ranging erudition, De Duve takes us on a dazzling tour of the biological world, beginning with the invisible workings of the cell, the area in which he won his Nobel Prize. He describes how the first cells may have arisen and suggests that they may have been like the organisms that exist today near deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Contrary to many scientists, he argues that life was bound to arise and that it probably only took millennia--maybe tens of thousands of years--to move from rough building blocks to the first organisms possessing the basic properties of life.
Yeah well to religious nutters like yourself , any reasonable comment or logical proposition are just word games, basically because you don't have a reasonable argument to make. There would be no need for agnostics if atheism were no belief? wtf are you talking about now. Of course atheism is no belief. You see science where there is none. You see intelligent design where there is non. You see belief where there is none. Talk about delusional. There is no need for agnostics anyway. They're just ditherers, alternating between being atheist one minute and theist the next. Atheists state many things, one of which is they have no belief in a God. Simple. How strange you can't grasp it.