| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Church of The Painful Truth" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2004 01:31:53 PM |
| Object: |
Question For Evolutionists |
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 02:00:21 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
Cheers,
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 02:04:17 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
Cheers,
Jim07D4
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically
provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have
answered?
Does your answer reflect your religion or your science?<<
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 02:12:13 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would fly
apart. What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence. We call them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that keep these
laws in action. Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not matter
itself.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself holds all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:33:34 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:103cqnel3gele58@corp.supernews.com...
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would fly
apart.
Please demonstrate this phenomenon.
What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence.
First you need to demonstrate that something has to do that.
We call them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that keep
these
laws in action.
And minds imply parents, grand parents, and great-great grandparents, ad
infinitum.
You'll need to demonstrate that something needs to keep laws in action.
Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not matter
itself.
You'll need to demonstrate that evil falls down.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself holds
all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
No, YOU have no clue that leads you to believe that. You just make it up.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:46:47 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Edidnf05XtIeFqvdRVn_iw@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:103cqnel3gele58@corp.supernews.com...
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would fly
apart.
Please demonstrate this phenomenon.
What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence.
First you need to demonstrate that something has to do that.
We call them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that keep
these
laws in action.
And minds imply parents, grand parents, and great-great grandparents, ad
infinitum.
You'll need to demonstrate that something needs to keep laws in action.
Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not matter
itself.
You'll need to demonstrate that evil falls down.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself holds
all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
No, YOU have no clue that leads you to believe that. You just make it up.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
+BONK!+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 07:54:45 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:q7wZb.155$uJ.47023@news.uswest.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Edidnf05XtIeFqvdRVn_iw@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:103cqnel3gele58@corp.supernews.com...
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in
the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as
if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would
fly
apart.
Please demonstrate this phenomenon.
What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence.
First you need to demonstrate that something has to do that.
We call them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that keep
these
laws in action.
And minds imply parents, grand parents, and great-great grandparents, ad
infinitum.
You'll need to demonstrate that something needs to keep laws in action.
Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not matter
itself.
You'll need to demonstrate that evil falls down.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself
holds
all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
No, YOU have no clue that leads you to believe that. You just make it
up.
+BONK!+
If that's supposed to be incisive commentary, it fails.
If, however, it's an attempt at a Harpo Marx impersonation, it needs to be a
"HONK!" as if from an old manual air-bulb auto horn, and you need to do it
twice, like this: "HONK, HONK!"
Glad to be of help.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 10:06:35 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:NqCdnQWH__UPJ6vdRVn-hQ@io.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:q7wZb.155$uJ.47023@news.uswest.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Edidnf05XtIeFqvdRVn_iw@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:103cqnel3gele58@corp.supernews.com...
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in
the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be
as
if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would
fly
apart.
Please demonstrate this phenomenon.
What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence.
First you need to demonstrate that something has to do that.
We call them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that
keep
these
laws in action.
And minds imply parents, grand parents, and great-great grandparents,
ad
infinitum.
You'll need to demonstrate that something needs to keep laws in
action.
Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not
matter
itself.
You'll need to demonstrate that evil falls down.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do
is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself
holds
all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
No, YOU have no clue that leads you to believe that. You just make it
up.
+BONK!+
If that's supposed to be incisive commentary, it fails.
If, however, it's an attempt at a Harpo Marx impersonation, it needs to be
a
"HONK!" as if from an old manual air-bulb auto horn, and you need to do it
twice, like this: "HONK, HONK!"
Glad to be of help.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
+PS Counterflame if it amuses you, but don't expect to intimidate or enrage
me. You are a gray speck on a gray floor; insignificant. And I, unlike you,
know how to use a keyboard and a scroll bar+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 09:58:12 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:NqCdnQWH__UPJ6vdRVn-hQ@io.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:q7wZb.155$uJ.47023@news.uswest.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Edidnf05XtIeFqvdRVn_iw@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:103cqnel3gele58@corp.supernews.com...
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in
the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be
as
if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would
fly
apart.
Please demonstrate this phenomenon.
What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence.
First you need to demonstrate that something has to do that.
We call them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that
keep
these
laws in action.
And minds imply parents, grand parents, and great-great grandparents,
ad
infinitum.
You'll need to demonstrate that something needs to keep laws in
action.
Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not
matter
itself.
You'll need to demonstrate that evil falls down.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do
is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself
holds
all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
No, YOU have no clue that leads you to believe that. You just make it
up.
+BONK!+
+Am I addressing a male idiot or a female idiot? I'm wondering, because it
sounds to me like either you're on a major PMS freak out or your medication
needs refilling, pronto. Either way, it's a most pathetic sight. +
If that's supposed to be incisive commentary, it fails.
If, however, it's an attempt at a Harpo Marx impersonation, it needs to be
a
"HONK!" as if from an old manual air-bulb auto horn, and you need to do it
twice, like this: "HONK, HONK!"
Glad to be of help.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:45:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:103cqnel3gele58@corp.supernews.com...
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eipc30dehtvnrlpe56er4ptmetigkno9a4@4ax.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> said:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This universe is not that well organized. The way things look, in the
long run, it'll be gone, one way or another. And then it will be as if
it never existed.
Any universes that aren't well organized enough for life, lack it.
Any universes that are not well organized enough to exist, don't.
His question is easy enough. Matter is perfect or else we all would fly
apart. What is it that is holding us so perfectly in existence. We call
them
laws but laws imply a lawgiver and a mind capable of thought that keep
these
laws in action. Matter only falls down as it relates to one another just
as
all evil does. Evil exists as relationships between matter, not matter
itself.
We take about gravity. weak force, strong force, etc. yet all we do is
describe their actions, we have know clue that the creator himself holds
all
things together by his omnipresent mnd.
+Randy,amongst a sea of reprobates and idiots you get an "A+"+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 02:42:16 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It's not.
To say "matter is perfectly organized," you need some conscious
entity that sets forth objective standards by which the organization of
matter can be measured, and then measure the organization of matter
according to those standards.
If *you* take on the role of that conscious entity, then either
you have a standard by which the current universe is but one example (in
which case you have a Nobel Prize in physics and the are envy of
material physicists everywhere), or you are defining perfection in terms
of your singular example: "matter is perfectly organized in our universe
because *I say* that our universe epitomizes the perfect organization of
matter." That is a circular argument, and inherently fallacious.
The best you can say, from a rational, philosophical standpoint,
is that the regular, operant processes of our universe, of which matter
is but one example, are *sufficient* for a universe that contains
conscious beings. This is axiomatic (it's really just the anthropic
principle written another way), but it is at least not circular, for it
leaves open the possibility of other operant, regular universes that may
also meet the required condition.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:53:45 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3brntzdnb.fsf@drizzle.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It's not.
To say "matter is perfectly organized," you need some conscious
entity that sets forth objective standards by which the organization of
matter can be measured, and then measure the organization of matter
according to those standards.
If *you* take on the role of that conscious entity, then either
you have a standard by which the current universe is but one example (in
which case you have a Nobel Prize in physics and the are envy of
material physicists everywhere), or you are defining perfection in terms
of your singular example: "matter is perfectly organized in our universe
because *I say* that our universe epitomizes the perfect organization of
matter." That is a circular argument, and inherently fallacious.
The best you can say, from a rational, philosophical standpoint,
is that the regular, operant processes of our universe, of which matter
is but one example, are *sufficient* for a universe that contains
conscious beings. This is axiomatic (it's really just the anthropic
principle written another way), but it is at least not circular, for it
leaves open the possibility of other operant, regular universes that may
also meet the required condition.
Elf
+The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic
questions....
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential
elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life
chemistry
2.. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence,
stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence,
stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
3.. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too
unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite
nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would
never form
4.. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive
than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5.. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force
constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun;
hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if
smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus
incapable of producing heavy elements
6.. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7.. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy,
star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above
8.. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse,
even before stars formed
9.. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no
proto-galaxies would form
10.. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to
burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage
of heavy elements
11.. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars
would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12.. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the
right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable
burning phase would not yet have formed
13.. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty
space
14.. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would
be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would
destabilize the sun's orbit
15.. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe
would be hampered by lack of material
16.. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to
form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17.. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of
spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than
the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18.. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
s.. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20.. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21.. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in
all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life
chemistry
22.. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of
many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many
neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23.. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter
would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24.. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life;
liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not
float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25.. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life
on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too
sparse for rocky planets to form
26.. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late:
fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27.. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28.. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist;
thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29.. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if
larger: same result
30.. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31.. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black
holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32.. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function
properly if larger: same result
33.. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain
life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain
life-essential elements would be unstable
34.. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
22 Feb 2004 11:30:38 AM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<_dwZb.157$uJ.47665@news.uswest.net>...
+The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic
questions....
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential
elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life
chemistry
Why no life chemistry? There might be a *different* life chemistry,
unlike what we observe now.
2.. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence,
stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence,
stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
Why impossible? There might be a *different* life chemistry, unlike
what we observe now.
3.. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too
unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite
nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would
never form
Scientists have discovered lifeforms in environments where life was
previously thought insupportible. It turns out that many elements are
not as necessary for life as we thought. If the available elements are
different, different lifeforms are possible.
<snip>
Everything on this list is based on the assumption that the life
chemistry we see is the only life chemistry possible in any universe.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:09:31 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
What do you mean by perfectly organized, and compared to what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:54:37 PM |
|
|
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential
elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life
chemistry
2.. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence,
stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence,
stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
3.. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too
unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite
nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would
never form
4.. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive
than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5.. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force
constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun;
hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if
smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus
incapable of producing heavy elements
6.. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7.. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy,
star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above
8.. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse,
even before stars formed
9.. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no
proto-galaxies would form
10.. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to
burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage
of heavy elements
11.. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars
would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12.. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the
right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable
burning phase would not yet have formed
13.. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty
space
14.. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would
be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would
destabilize the sun's orbit
15.. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe
would be hampered by lack of material
16.. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to
form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17.. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of
spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than
the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18.. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
s.. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20.. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21.. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in
all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life
chemistry
22.. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of
many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many
neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23.. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter
would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24.. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life;
liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not
float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25.. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life
on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too
sparse for rocky planets to form
26.. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late:
fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27.. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28.. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist;
thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29.. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if
larger: same result
30.. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31.. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black
holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32.. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function
properly if larger: same result
33.. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain
life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain
life-essential elements would be unstable
34.. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9495EB4C34C5Cinsensitiveclodhotma@192.71.180.100...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
What do you mean by perfectly organized, and compared to what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 09:06:38 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Not a single example is demonstrative of perfection, only
sufficiency. Sorry.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 09:59:58 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3isi12ksh.fsf@drizzle.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Not a single example is demonstrative of perfection, only
sufficiency. Sorry.
Elf
+Then I suggest you read this-sorry-
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? +
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 11:55:25 AM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3isi12ksh.fsf@drizzle.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Not a single example is demonstrative of perfection, only
sufficiency. Sorry.
+Then I suggest you read this-sorry-
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? +
A link would have been nice. I've read quite a few "origins"
stories. Only one-- evolutionary theory, resting on the bed of modern
physics-- actually supplies something other than blind faith to accept
it as reasonable.
There is one interesting point about this line of questions, the
"fine tuning question." In order for the theist to make his point, *not
only* must the universe be deliberately fine-tuned, but the deity that
did the fine tuning must be continuously and regularly maintaining that
tuning, without fail, without pause, without evidence of its actions.
Such a position looks exactly the universe of evolutionists
anyway.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 02:35:10 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3fzd42u7m.fsf@drizzle.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3isi12ksh.fsf@drizzle.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Not a single example is demonstrative of perfection, only
sufficiency. Sorry.
+Then I suggest you read this-sorry-
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? +
A link would have been nice. I've read quite a few "origins"
stories. Only one-- evolutionary theory, resting on the bed of modern
physics-- actually supplies something other than blind faith to accept
it as reasonable.
There is one interesting point about this line of questions, the
"fine tuning question." In order for the theist to make his point, *not
only* must the universe be deliberately fine-tuned, but the deity that
did the fine tuning must be continuously and regularly maintaining that
tuning, without fail, without pause, without evidence of its actions.
Such a position looks exactly the universe of evolutionists
anyway.
Elf
+Elf,it's all about the truth and someday hopefully you'll find it.+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
22 Feb 2004 11:19:37 AM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Such a position looks exactly the universe of evolutionists
anyway.
+Elf,it's all about the truth and someday hopefully you'll find it.+
You're absolutely right. It's about the truth. And all of your
posturing about the way the universe is regular and "perfect" and needs
no further fine tuning, no further intervention-- all of your posturing
about the way the universe looks like an ordinarily naturalistic
universe-- corresponds with the truth: the universe simply *is*, and
there is no explanation for it. But it does not lie to us.
It is not set up to set us at each other's throats. The world
is not made up of the mostly wicked and the few saved, but instead the
mostly ordinary and good trying to make it through life in peace and
quiet and the few fanatical determined to disrupt that quiet.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
22 Feb 2004 11:59:27 AM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3fzd3uj4m.fsf@drizzle.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Such a position looks exactly the universe of evolutionists
anyway.
+Elf,it's all about the truth and someday hopefully you'll find it.+
You're absolutely right. It's about the truth. And all of your
posturing about the way the universe is regular and "perfect" and needs
no further fine tuning, no further intervention-- all of your posturing
about the way the universe looks like an ordinarily naturalistic
universe-- corresponds with the truth: the universe simply *is*, and
there is no explanation for it. But it does not lie to us.
It is not set up to set us at each other's throats. The world
is not made up of the mostly wicked and the few saved, but instead the
mostly ordinary and good trying to make it through life in peace and
quiet and the few fanatical determined to disrupt that quiet.
Elf
Bravo Elf!--well said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 05:39:49 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:MewZb.161$uJ.47632@news.uswest.net:
What do you mean by perfectly organized, and compared to what?
[...]
So what? You assume that the universe is finetuned for life, because there
is something that we classify as life. How many worlds have we found that
have life? How many human beings are there? How many organisms at all?
Seems to me that the universe is finetuned for hydrogen, since 98% or so of
all matter is hydrogen. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone,
perhaps it was finetuned for galaxies? And then what are we, tiny creatures
with a short lifespan, living within the thin layer of the biosphere which
covers a tiny grain of sand in this quite large universe. We're big and
important only in our own image of ourselves...
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 05:49:41 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns949667669E7insensitiveclodhotma@192.71.180.100...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:MewZb.161$uJ.47632@news.uswest.net:
What do you mean by perfectly organized, and compared to what?
[...]
So what? You assume that the universe is finetuned for life, because there
is something that we classify as life. How many worlds have we found that
have life? How many human beings are there? How many organisms at all?
Seems to me that the universe is finetuned for hydrogen, since 98% or so
of
all matter is hydrogen. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone,
perhaps it was finetuned for galaxies? And then what are we, tiny
creatures
with a short lifespan, living within the thin layer of the biosphere which
covers a tiny grain of sand in this quite large universe. We're big and
important only in our own image of ourselves...
+Evasion logged+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 08:46:11 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
What makes you think that matter is "perfectly" organized?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 05:37:34 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Who ever said it was "perfect"?
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 08:06:46 PM |
|
|
And it came to pass that Doc Smartass
<gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com> did write in alt.atheism,
news:Xns9495B3CC5F54Daskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Who ever said it was "perfect"?
D'oh. Goddid. Don't you know *anything*? :-)
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 10:36:42 PM |
|
|
Walking on Glass <walking_on_glass@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:Xns9496157DF408walkingonglasshotmai@195.92.193.157:
And it came to pass that Doc Smartass
<gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com> did write in alt.atheism,
news:Xns9495B3CC5F54Daskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net:
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Who ever said it was "perfect"?
D'oh. Goddid. Don't you know *anything*? :-)
Apparently not :(
--
Dr. Smartass, who forgot this simplest of "answers" ;)
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Folsom" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
25 Feb 2004 10:51:32 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net...
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It didn't.
Mark Folsom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:36:50 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net>...
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
First off, what's an "Evolutionist"? Is that a new swear word in the
xian lexography.
Secondly, what the heck does evolution have to do with matter? You
don't even have a clue about the terms you are using. Yet you expect
us to take your opinions seriously.
Try getting an elementary education before showing us how ignorant we
are. OK?
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 05:16:02 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0402201436.2410170c@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net>...
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
First off, what's an "Evolutionist"? Is that a new swear word in the
xian lexography.
Secondly, what the heck does evolution have to do with matter? You
don't even have a clue about the terms you are using. Yet you expect
us to take your opinions seriously.
Try getting an elementary education before showing us how ignorant we
are. OK?
jwk
I have an MBA to go with that elementary education you seem to be concerned
about.
Now,please answer the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 09:55:22 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<RywZb.174$uJ.49246@news.uswest.net>...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0402201436.2410170c@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<RgtZb.120$uJ.32207@news.uswest.net>...
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
First off, what's an "Evolutionist"? Is that a new swear word in the
xian lexography.
Secondly, what the heck does evolution have to do with matter? You
don't even have a clue about the terms you are using. Yet you expect
us to take your opinions seriously.
Try getting an elementary education before showing us how ignorant we
are. OK?
jwk
I have an MBA
I rest my case.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
