| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2007 01:07:53 PM |
| Object: |
Why There's No Design #75 |
Creationists insist that design is demonstrated - nay proven - by the
universe being so finely-tuned for our existence in it. Britain's
Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, outlined this fine-tuning in his book
"Just Six Numbers"
http://tinyurl.com/ymq7n5
Wikipedia itemizes these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant
Nu
the ratio of the electroweak to the gravitational force
Epsilon
related to the strong force
Omega
the number of electrons and protons in the observable universe
Lambda
the cosmological constant
Q
the ratio of fundamental energies
Delta
the number of spatial dimensions.
Unfortunately for just six numbskulls at the Discovery Institute and
for creationists everywhere, there are three unwarranted assumptions
built into this claim. The first is that the universe is designed.
The second is that it's for us.
The third is a hidden assumption that creationists like to run from
when challenged on it (and I predict they'll do the same here): that
there's only one universe.
Physicists do not blindly believe as creationists do. Instead, they
follow the evidence, and one shooting star in particular has been
following it into other universes of late, drawn by the power of
gravity:
http://tinyurl.com/y5ngzl
"How can gravity be so strong that it can move planets yet so weak
that a simple refrigerator magnet can resist its pull? The question
eats at the core of physics; our best theories don't come close to
explaining why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental
forces (electro-magnetism, for example). Hard problems, though, often
demand unorthodox solutions, and the one Nima Arkani-Hamed and his
collaborators came up with is a doozy. Gravity, they hypothesized, is
seeping out of our three-dimensional universe and into two exceedingly
large extra dimensions that are diluting its force. In other words, our
universe has a leak.
"One year and three papers later, brand-new fields of research had
sprouted up around the idea....But this time, it's not extra
dimensions he's betting on. It's extra universes - some 10^500 of
them"
That's how you determine if something is good science - not by whether
it has a web site, not by whether people are persuading their religious
cronies to fund a book on the topic, not by whether some fundie with a
well-honed machine-gun debate presentation before a biased audience can
make people laugh, but by whether papers are written, new areas of
research open up, and the potential for testing is there:
"His first piece of evidence, albeit indirect, for this multiverse
could be collected as soon as next year, when physicists in Geneva turn
on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the most powerful particle
accelerator in the world. If Arkani-Hamed's calculations are correct,
the LHC will reveal a hidden feature of the universe called split
supersymmetry, or split susy (pronounced SOO-see), a theory that half
of all particles in the universe have partner particles that the LHC
will be able to see."
Nothing that intelligent design advocates have been able to offer has
resulted in new papers being published on the topic or on new areas of
science being opened up. Nothing.
The bottom line is that even if there were only one universe, and
apparently "fine-tuned" as it may seem, it still does not constitute
proof or even evidence of intelligent design. But it removes itself
even further from such consideration if it's only one of a huge number
of universes, one that just happened to be right for life to appear and
evolve within
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Luminoso" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #75 |
07 Jan 2007 03:14:17 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2007 11:07:53 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Creationists insist that design is demonstrated - nay proven - by the
universe being so finely-tuned for our existence in it.
Ye olde "anthropic principle" dusted-off once again.
Britain's Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, outlined this fine-tuning
in his book >"Just Six Numbers"
http://tinyurl.com/ymq7n5
If things weren't like they are, we wouldn't exist - but
perhaps other things would, things more suited for the
different kind of environment.
Hey, even the near-balance of things in this UNIVERSE
may be a fluke. Could have been a trillion universes
prior that only survived microseconds because their
mix of physical laws and initial condistions didn't
permit a long-lasting product.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #75 |
09 Jan 2007 07:12:45 PM |
|
|
Luminoso wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 11:07:53 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Creationists insist that design is demonstrated - nay proven - by the
universe being so finely-tuned for our existence in it.
Ye olde "anthropic principle" dusted-off once again.
Britain's Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, outlined this fine-tuning
in his book >"Just Six Numbers"
http://tinyurl.com/ymq7n5
If things weren't like they are, we wouldn't exist - but
perhaps other things would, things more suited for the
different kind of environment.
Hey, even the near-balance of things in this UNIVERSE
may be a fluke. Could have been a trillion universes
prior that only survived microseconds because their
mix of physical laws and initial condistions didn't
permit a long-lasting product.
One person couldn't even 'design' all the many species of mosquitoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luminoso" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #75 |
10 Jan 2007 07:14:44 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2007 17:12:45 -0800, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
<sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote:
Luminoso wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 11:07:53 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Creationists insist that design is demonstrated - nay proven - by the
universe being so finely-tuned for our existence in it.
Ye olde "anthropic principle" dusted-off once again.
Britain's Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, outlined this fine-tuning
in his book >"Just Six Numbers"
http://tinyurl.com/ymq7n5
If things weren't like they are, we wouldn't exist - but
perhaps other things would, things more suited for the
different kind of environment.
Hey, even the near-balance of things in this UNIVERSE
may be a fluke. Could have been a trillion universes
prior that only survived microseconds because their
mix of physical laws and initial condistions didn't
permit a long-lasting product.
One person couldn't even 'design' all the many species of mosquitoes.
Well, that's why someone invented the idea of
all-powerful, all-knowing 'superbeings' ...
takes care of those little problems. Your basic
superbeing can design 99,000 species of beetles
in an instant.
Of course if they're 'all-knowing', what's the
point ? They'd already know what's to become of
every single beetle and everything they are going
to interact with over the next hundred million
years. Kind of takes the fun out of 'design' ...
And if they're NOT 'ALL-knowing' that means that
something ELSE could, eventually, become even MORE
KNOWING.
And we won't even get into the horrible paradoxes
'all-powerful' can create ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred of UrlBit.Us" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #75 |
10 Jan 2007 07:49:40 AM |
|
|
Luminoso wrote:
On 9 Jan 2007 17:12:45 -0800, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
....
One person couldn't even 'design' all the many species of mosquitoes.
Well, that's why someone invented the idea of
all-powerful, all-knowing 'superbeings' ...
takes care of those little problems. Your basic
superbeing can design 99,000 species of beetles
in an instant.
Of course if they're 'all-knowing', what's the
point ? They'd already know what's to become of
every single beetle and everything they are going
to interact with over the next hundred million
years. Kind of takes the fun out of 'design' ...
And if they're NOT 'ALL-knowing' that means that
something ELSE could, eventually, become even MORE
KNOWING.
And we won't even get into the horrible paradoxes
'all-powerful' can create ...
Yes, these issues have been settled elsewhere LOOONG ago. And truthfully,
the more one learns about the Universe, the more obvious it becomes that
no "intelligent designer" had its hands in it. The patterns we see wherever
we look, whether its how consciousness works:
http://urlbit.us/cv
to the details of the cosmos where you see large-scale structures and how
they are organized, etc., it is clear that these systems self-organize,
self-adapt, and self-modify in a way that *DOES NOT REQUIRE* an executive
influence.
And if such is not required, why posit one in the first place?
Let me see, there's no such thing as gravity -- weight fairies pull
everything down to earth! So you'd better be kind to your weight fairy or
you just may float away!!
--
-- Fred of UrlBit.Us
-- http://UrlBit.Us - Bite those URLs down to size!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luminoso" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #75 |
10 Jan 2007 04:59:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:49:40 -0500, "Fred of UrlBit.Us"
<fred@urlbit.us> wrote:
Luminoso wrote:
On 9 Jan 2007 17:12:45 -0800, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
...
One person couldn't even 'design' all the many species of mosquitoes.
Well, that's why someone invented the idea of
all-powerful, all-knowing 'superbeings' ...
takes care of those little problems. Your basic
superbeing can design 99,000 species of beetles
in an instant.
Of course if they're 'all-knowing', what's the
point ? They'd already know what's to become of
every single beetle and everything they are going
to interact with over the next hundred million
years. Kind of takes the fun out of 'design' ...
And if they're NOT 'ALL-knowing' that means that
something ELSE could, eventually, become even MORE
KNOWING.
And we won't even get into the horrible paradoxes
'all-powerful' can create ...
Yes, these issues have been settled elsewhere LOOONG ago. And truthfully,
the more one learns about the Universe, the more obvious it becomes that
no "intelligent designer" had its hands in it. The patterns we see wherever
we look, whether its how consciousness works:
http://urlbit.us/cv
to the details of the cosmos where you see large-scale structures and how
they are organized, etc., it is clear that these systems self-organize,
self-adapt, and self-modify in a way that *DOES NOT REQUIRE* an executive
influence.
And if such is not required, why posit one in the first place?
Isn't it obvious - POWER and MONEY.
Let me see, there's no such thing as gravity -- weight fairies pull
everything down to earth! So you'd better be kind to your weight fairy or
you just may float away!!
--
-- Fred of UrlBit.Us
-- http://UrlBit.Us - Bite those URLs down to size!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
