I don't understand how evolution is such a controversial topic..

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]The improbability fo the existence of life is hardly a compelling argument against evolution.Silver_Dragon17

I'm not arguing against evolution.:|

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]The improbability fo the existence of life is hardly a compelling argument against evolution.quiglythegreat

I'm not arguing against evolution.:|

I think God can use evolution and still tinker around His creation every once in a while.

I love the Anthropic principal. It's what makes science interesting to me.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]The improbability fo the existence of life is hardly a compelling argument against evolution.Silver_Dragon17

I'm not arguing against evolution.:|

I think God can use evolution and still tinker around His creation every once in a while.

I love the Anthropic principal. It's what makes science interesting to me.

I mean.. it just kind of seems pretty obvious that everything has to change at some point. I don't see how it is somehow against God to believe it. I believe in evolution, but I still consider myself to be a christian. Oh well this'll probably start some debate.. or not be noticed at all. oh well.starwarsgeek112

Poor standards of education and the inability to reconcile beliefs because individuals insist on placing it in direct confrontation with the evidence.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Silver your point fails your falling into a simplistic fallacy called begging the question.. You went from point A to C.. Basically your poitn is Life is complex in many ways thus god made it.. Please tell every one here how life can be classified as complex or perfect? We have no such description except only in mathmatics.. How can the observed "perfection/complexitiy" be linked to god.. You have yet to give a single shred of evidence or REALISTIC condition that fits the premise to meet the conlcusion.. Now I am not saying god doesn't exist.. But you can not logically argue it by trying to use emperical evidence that does not exist or is based on pure speculation.Silver_Dragon17

How's this?

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
19. 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

Naming facts of science as we humans have discovered them is not proof of a creator. =/

can someone explain the anthropic principal to me?mig_killer2

In simplest terms: It's the idea that life, the universe, and everything is so finely tuned, so exact, that it CANNOT have come about without some form of divine help. Google it for more info.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Silver your point fails your falling into a simplistic fallacy called begging the question.. You went from point A to C.. Basically your poitn is Life is complex in many ways thus god made it.. Please tell every one here how life can be classified as complex or perfect? We have no such description except only in mathmatics.. How can the observed "perfection/complexitiy" be linked to god.. You have yet to give a single shred of evidence or REALISTIC condition that fits the premise to meet the conlcusion.. Now I am not saying god doesn't exist.. But you can not logically argue it by trying to use emperical evidence that does not exist or is based on pure speculation.PrimordialMeme

How's this?

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
19. 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

Naming facts of science as we humans have discovered them is not proof of a creator. =/

No, and that was never the objective.:|

Silver Dragon wins in my eyes. Gratz :)OfficialJab

Thanks.:)

That still isn't evidence for a creator. What would it look like if this universe could not support us? Clearly, we wouldn't be here to examine our chances. ;)

Naming facts of science as we humans have discovered them is not proof of a creator. =/

PrimordialMeme

He could have also summed it up as the fine-tuning argument but I guess he figures big lists make him seem more impressive, especially when he has little understanding about them.

For instance, ask him the following: 'What are the sufficient conditions for life?' and he would be unable to answer. This is because nobody actually knows what conditions are sufficient to produce life. All we do know is the conditions to sustain forms of life that evolved on Earth, and this understanding is still growing and most certainly not conclusive.

Because some people are going to Heaven, unlike you, who has clearly not accepted the teachings of Christ, our lord and savior.quiglythegreat

That still isn't evidence for a creator. What would it look like if this universe could not support us? Clearly, we wouldn't be here to examine our chances. ;)

DeeJayInphinity

Huh?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]

That still isn't evidence for a creator. What would it look like if this universe could not support us? Clearly, we wouldn't be here to examine our chances. ;)

Silver_Dragon17

Huh?

That long list of "coincidences" that you posted. Weren't you trying to use that as evidence of a creator?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]

That still isn't evidence for a creator. What would it look like if this universe could not support us? Clearly, we wouldn't be here to examine our chances. ;)

DeeJayInphinity

Huh?

That long list of "coincidences" that you posted. Weren't you trying to use that as evidence of a creator?

They aren't "coincidences." That was kind of the point.

Silver-

God is the result of evolution, the concept that is.

I understand your anthropic principle states you are awed by the laws of nature and science but thats it. Its just your mind trying to deal with that information. Thats fact because thats what the ancients lived believing. They could explain floods and acts of nature that scared them as part of a super intellect's plan. Its all they could relate it to, a parental figure of sorts.

So it has been passed on for thousands of years and survived as a MEME barely altered, one that you have been presented with. Its a tribal product at its roots. It has tribal cohesion purposes, served as a tool for powerful leaders to organize resources, etc. Its other advantage? It obviously allowed people to be happier thinking they could live forever as some of these gods do or there was some grand purpose to their life, and factually happy people live longer. So it survived.

Silver, maybe if the laws of physics were different, then forms of life that depend on those laws would exist instead of us.Zagrius

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]Silver, maybe if the laws of physics were different, then forms of life that depend on those laws would exist instead of us.mig_killer2

But he's talking about what would happen if things worked differently. Perhaps if the rules were different in such a way as to be un-able to support Human life, they would be able to support a different form of life.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]Silver, maybe if the laws of physics were different, then forms of life that depend on those laws would exist instead of us.Zagrius

But he's talking about what would happen if things worked differently. Perhaps if the rules were different in such a way as to be un-able to support Human life, they would be able to support a different form of life.

Silver-

God is the result of evolution, the concept that is.

I understand your anthropic principle states you are awed by the laws of nature and science but thats it. Its just your mind trying to deal with that information. Thats fact because thats what the ancients lived believing. They could explain floods and acts of nature that scared them as part of a super intellect's plan. Its all they could relate it to, a parental figure of sorts.

So it has been passed on for thousands of years and survived as a MEME barely altered, one that you have been presented with. Its a tribal product at its roots. It has tribal cohesion purposes, served as a tool for powerful leaders to organize resources, etc. Its other advantage? It obviously allowed people to be happier thinking they could live forever as some of these gods do or there was some grand purpose to their life, and factually happy people live longer. So it survived.

PrimordialMeme

Actually, in the 19th century, Atheists used ideas such as the universe being eternal and others as proof against God.;)

Memes are debatable. . .

If I attributed my lack of knowledge to God (God of the Gaps theory), then I must not have gone to school. . .but I did. . .we have more knowledge now than ever before in history. I most certainly am awed at the laws of science and nature. But that is simply irrelevant.

Finally, happiness of an afterlife is no consolation for the life we have.;)

Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. artichoke

Macroevolution does not work that way.

[QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. ninjacat11

Macroevolution does not work that way.

the conditions pointed out by silver dragon, under most of those conditions, no life forms of any kind could have formed because organic compounds would be unstable, or there would be no carbon, or any heavy elements from stellar nucleosynthesis, or under some circumstances, no matter at all. mig_killer2

This again is based on rules that create this universe. Nobody knows what variables would allow for a stable universe much less for the creation of life. Certainly we have expectations of carbon-based life, but we already know that at the very least there can be Silicon based life just on the structure of this universe.

There is no telling what another stable universe other than this one might be able to produce based on whatever rules it was based on.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]Silver, maybe if the laws of physics were different, then forms of life that depend on those laws would exist instead of us.mig_killer2

But he's talking about what would happen if things worked differently. Perhaps if the rules were different in such a way as to be un-able to support Human life, they would be able to support a different form of life.

It's impossible to imagine the impact a change would have. Perhaps some matter wouldn't be able to form, but instead something else which can't exist in our current set of rules would form instead. When you talk about a different universe that works differently, I don't see how you can know exactly what would happen there.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Silver your point fails your falling into a simplistic fallacy called begging the question.. You went from point A to C.. Basically your poitn is Life is complex in many ways thus god made it.. Please tell every one here how life can be classified as complex or perfect? We have no such description except only in mathmatics.. How can the observed "perfection/complexitiy" be linked to god.. You have yet to give a single shred of evidence or REALISTIC condition that fits the premise to meet the conlcusion.. Now I am not saying god doesn't exist.. But you can not logically argue it by trying to use emperical evidence that does not exist or is based on pure speculation.Silver_Dragon17

How's this?

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
19. 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

Please explain this step by step because in the end your copying and pasting basic ideas on discoveries that is not complete.. You have YET to point to how this proves the point of a god what so ever... If its as "crystal" clear in the science communities eyes as it is in yours there wouldn't be a argument now would there? In the end your still begging the question I am still looking for that condition I challenged you with to connect yoru premise with the conclusion.. You have yet to give a realistic one or in fact one at all.

I also find it hilarious that you think you can show proof in a few lines in what has taken wise and intellignet people a life time trying to figure out the answer and they have yet to reach a realistic one.

Actually, in the 19th century, Atheists used ideas such as the universe being eternal and others as proof against God.;)

Memes are debatable. . .

If I attributed my lack of knowledge to God (God of the Gaps theory), then I must not have gone to school. . .but I did. . .we have more knowledge now than ever before in history. I most certainly am awed at the laws of science and nature. But that is simply irrelevant.

Finally, happiness of an afterlife is no consolation for the life we have.;)

Silver_Dragon17

'meme' is just a simple description of a big, culturally transmitted idea. Religion certainly is one.

I also didn't say you think you take the God of the Gaps theory, but you are. Thats why it was pervasive at the beginning of civilization. It was passed on that way, that doesn't mean you feel it has anything to do with you thats why its as common today as it is. It has roots there, and so more people today decended from a mass society that took those ideas as fact.

Its not a question of your beliefs beyond whether you are a beliver or not.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Actually, in the 19th century, Atheists used ideas such as the universe being eternal and others as proof against God.;)

Memes are debatable. . .

If I attributed my lack of knowledge to God (God of the Gaps theory), then I must not have gone to school. . .but I did. . .we have more knowledge now than ever before in history. I most certainly am awed at the laws of science and nature. But that is simply irrelevant.

Finally, happiness of an afterlife is no consolation for the life we have.;)

PrimordialMeme

'meme' is just a simple description of a big, culturally transmitted idea. Religion certainly is one.

I also didn't say you think you take the God of the Gaps theory, but you are. Thats why it was pervasive at the beginning of civilization. How can you argue that?

My personal favorite religious argument, is the claiming that if religion did not exist mankind would not have good ethics/moral values.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh I have no problem with creationism, as LONG as its not taught in schools and science classes.. Leave the way thigns are now..starwarsgeek112

I think the problem most Christians have against evolution is that the Bible states that God created man and beasts as they appear now (I haven't actually read the bible but that's what I understand is claimed). If we claim that humans evolved from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee then we kind of discredit that creation theory which in turn discredits many other things that the bible claims.

As for the anthropic arguement I agree that it is an amazing coincidence that conditions are just right on earth to support life but that doesn't necessitate divine guidance. If we take the universe to be infinite or at least inconceivably large then is it really so surprising that at least one planet had optimal conditions for life to flourish? And like DeeJayInphinity said, if everything wasn't perfect then we wouldn't be here in the first place. You have to view life as accidental rather than neccesary to really appreciate what he was trying to say.

P.S. I agree with everything that primordialmeme said

[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

artichoke

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

[QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

Anamosa41

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

[QUOTE="starwarsgeek112"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh I have no problem with creationism, as LONG as its not taught in schools and science classes.. Leave the way thigns are now..domatron23

I think the problem most Christians have against evolution is that the Bible states that God created man and beasts as they appear now (I haven't actually read the bible but that's what I understand is claimed). If we claim that humans evolved from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee then we kind of discredit that creation theory which in turn discredits many other things that the bible claims.

As for the anthropic arguement I agree that it is an amazing coincidence that conditions are just right on earth to support life but that doesn't necessitate divine guidance. If we take the universe to be infinite or at least inconceivably large then is it really so surprising that at least one planet had optimal conditions for life to flourish? And like DeeJayInphinity said, if everything wasn't perfect then we wouldn't be here in the first place. You have to view life as accidental rather than neccesary to really appreciate what he was trying to say.

P.S. I agree with everything that primordialmeme said

Peopel fail to realize that time factors into that chance as well.. Sooner or later the solar system will be uninhabitable.. The same could be said of teh uncountable amounts of solar systems out there due to time which could cause a sun to mature say become a red giant which sets the planet in that perfect orbit where it was once frozen.. Or a solar system clips another causing another planet to change its orbit to proper conditions.. The list just goes on, science and mathamatics at this time can not make such claims int he very least...

[QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

quiglythegreat

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

BTW, there is proof of evolution, but no proof, or evidence of creationism

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

mig_killer2

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

BTW, there is proof of evolution, but no proof, or evidence of creationism

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

Anamosa41

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

BTW, there is proof of evolution, but no proof, or evidence of creationism

And I can't prove that I am not in the Matrix.

[QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

sSubZerOo

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

BTW, there is proof of evolution, but no proof, or evidence of creationism

And I can't prove that I am not in the Matrix.

OK but I don't agree. "Proof" is some that PROVES that something is right. Evolution can never be proven 100% correct.Anamosa41

You can't prove something to be 100% true because of the way science works. Evolution is as close as it gets to "fact," there's really a large amount of evidence for it, and it keeps increasing as biologists discover more fossils and as we gain more knowledge about the way everything evolved. It's just really hard to disprove evolution.

OK but I don't agree. "Proof" is some that PROVES that something is right. Evolution can never be proven 100% correct.Anamosa41

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

Anamosa41

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

BTW, there is proof of evolution, but no proof, or evidence of creationism

And I can't prove that I am not in the Matrix.

The 100% proof that you are talking about is non existent I was mocking you for it.. Its like me trying to prove that other beings really do exist and its not a figment of ones reality... Or that the closet monster doesn't exist.. Because I certainly can't go in to every closet on the plane through out the time, but the majority of evidence shows we are safe.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"][QUOTE="artichoke"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

Anamosa41

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

BTW, there is proof of evolution, but no proof, or evidence of creationism

[QUOTE="Anamosa41"]OK but I don't agree. "Proof" is some that PROVES that something is right. Evolution can never be proven 100% correct.quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"]OK but I don't agree. "Proof" is some that PROVES that something is right. Evolution can never be proven 100% correct.CptJSparrow

Some Christians believe that it directly contradicts Genesis, and then all of Christianity. However, and scholar will tell you the exact opposite.Silver_Dragon17

The earth is NOT a sphere. Which proves the Bible WRONG.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]Some Christians believe that it directly contradicts Genesis, and then all of Christianity. However, and scholar will tell you the exact opposite.MrGeezer

The earth is NOT a sphere. Which proves the Bible WRONG.

[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

There is zero credible evidence pointing to a creator of the universe.

Silver_Dragon17

Fred Hoyle (B[long list of quotes by scientists]

The philosophical and existential ramblings of scientists are evidence of nothing.

Not one of them provided a shred of evidence.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Anamosa41"]OK but I don't agree. "Proof" is some that PROVES that something is right. Evolution can never be proven 100% correct.quiglythegreat