Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fine tuning: Size of Earth

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further from that Eric Metaxas:

“If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It’s not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.

On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet’s surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist.” – Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 38-39

Again, hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments
MT:
You want NASA to cite someone else paper ?!
They didn't cite anything. They didn't even say how they made their determination.
You think NASA is a lower authority than lone scientist?
What lone scientist? But yes, anyone who doesn't show their work or provide any evidence is lower than someone who does. It's as if you are proudly ignorant.Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Me Think @72 "The puddle THINKS the hole is finely tuned for it." I'm calling your bluff. How could you possibly know if you prescribe thoughts to a puddle that it would Think the hole is finely tuned for it?? Zachriel @72 "we know that but the puddle doesn't." Same illogical nonsense prescribing certain thoughts to a puddle and not others. Zachriel @73 "That’s right. Could the hole be a different shape? Given that it could, then the specific complexity is staggering." Incorrect, specified complexity is when a complex arrangement of matter ALSO conforms to an independent pattern or function (lock/key opening a door) Will you ever acknowledge that part of my argument?jazzcat
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Joe @ 74 :- ) Yeah, NASA routinely makes bald declarations .Me_Think
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
The puddle is aware of its hole.
The puddle is more aware than you are. :razz:Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Only evos would think that puddles can think and contemplate their existence. Talk about desperation...Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
MT:
Either you should believe the NASA study I cited or you believe the paper you cited !
LoL! NASA'a was a bald declaration- there wasn't any science cited. OTOH my paper was peer-reviewed with plenty of studies cited.
The paper you cited shows Methane layer was protected – right ?
No, one of the papers tried to show how methane could have stayed but it didn't provide any evidence that the scenario was real.
If Methane has such a high level in today’s atmosphere with active Methane Sink, then it was far more (1000 times more as per NASA) than it is now-
That doesn't follow and methane doesn't have a high level in today's atmosphere.Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
jazzcat: In order for the puddle to “determine” if the hole it resides in was finely tuned for its existence it would have to theorize changing the conditions of its universe or the hole. That's right. Could the hole be a different shape? Given that it could, then the specific complexity is staggering. William J Murray: The glaring flaw is that with a puddle, slightly altering the physical characteristics of the hole does nothing to change the capacity of the hole to hold a puddle of water. We know that, but the puddle doesn't.Zachriel
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
jazzcat @ 69
Is the hole finely tuned for the puddle to fit in it? We would correctly argue no.
That is exactly the point. Despite the hole not being fine tuned for the puddle, the puddle thinks the hole is finely tuned for it. Note that the puddle argument is a satire, and not a literal argument.Me_Think
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Zachriel said:
It’s a parallel case. Notably, you didn’t point to a flaw in the puddle’s logic.
It's hard to believe that any serious person considers the "puddle" analogy to be useful as anything other than blatant rhetoric. The glaring flaw is that with a puddle, slightly altering the physical characteristics of the hole does nothing to change the capacity of the hole to hold a puddle of water. Universal properties that are "fine-tuned for life" would logically equate to "features of a hole fine-tuned to hold water". If you slightly alter any of the fundamental forces of the universe, in many of the cases you don't even end up with a stable universe that lasts very long or which produces any sort of interesting material arrangements. With the puddle, you can deepen it, chip it, change the shape, partially fill it, and it still holds a puddle of water. What's really interesting here is how Darwinists are so easily seduced by the most glaringly false and pitiful analogies, and analogies that simply assume the very point under debate. Talk about clutching at straws.William J Murray
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
In order for the puddle to "determine" if the hole it resides in was finely tuned for its existence it would have to theorize changing the conditions of its universe or the hole. If it found that changing the conditions still allowed for its existence then it could "conclude" that the hole is NOT finely tuned.jazzcat
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
Zachriel @67 No, I'm afraid you don't understand your analogy. Is the hole finely tuned for the puddle to fit in it? We would correctly argue no. Is the lock and key finely tuned for the purpose to open the door (see my comments 17 and 65)? I would argue yes but according to your puddle analogy you would answer no. This means applying your analogies to known designs and known finely tuned structures serving a purpose yields a false result.jazzcat
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Joe @ 66,
My point is that you are WRONG about the methane level of the primordial atmosphere, duh. That is very clear to anyone with an education level above pre-school
Either you should believe the NASA study I cited or you believe the paper you cited ! The paper you cited shows Methane layer was protected - right ? So was the Methane level high or not in early Earth (ignore your belief that it was not protected- remember,your paper doesn't say so) ?
LoL! I cannot ignore what is irrelevant. Methane has an 8 year lifetime in our present atmosphere
If Methane has such a high level in today's atmosphere with active Methane Sink, then it was far more (1000 times more as per NASA) than it is now- why don't you get the simple point ?Me_Think
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
bornagain77: It takes a mind to ‘know’, yet you claim that you, and the puddle, have no mind. That is not our position. bornagain77: Moreover, the argument from fine-tuning is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. The puddle's conclusion is based on what the puddle knows. jazzcat: I looked over my comment @17 and nowhere at all did I depend on any puddle having any knowledge. Then, as we said, you missed the analogy. The puddle is aware of its hole. You will repeat your inability to understand the analogy here. jazzcat: Another point is that ID theory would never claim that the puddle in the hole is best explained by an intelligent agent because it doesn’t meet the test of specified complexity. The puddle in the hole is due to law-like necessity. The puddle is aware of the fit, but not aware of the law-like necessity. The puddle can even calculate the specified complexity of the hole. It fits staggeringly well.Zachriel
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
MT:
The OP is about Size of Earth lowering the atmospheric Methane layer, I mentioned bacteria survived in methane because early earth had 1000 times more methane than that we have now.
And I provided peer-review that says the methane level could not have been that high.
You said methane gets destroyed (ignoring that even with active Methane sink and no continuous production , Methane has 8 years life time,soil sink has 200 years lifetime)
LoL! I cannot ignore what is irrelevant. Methane has an 8 year lifetime in our present atmosphere. It would not have such a long life in the primordial atmosphere. Methane in soil is NOT atmospheric methane. My point is that you are WRONG about the methane level of the primordial atmosphere, duh. That is very clear to anyone with an education level above pre-schoolJoe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Zachriel @53 "jazzcat’s argument depends on the puddle having knowledge which it doesn’t have. That’s rather the point of the analogy. We can see what the puddle is missing, revealing the fallacious claim of design simply because the hole fits the puddle staggeringly well." I looked over my comment @17 and nowhere at all did I depend on any puddle having any knowledge. Perhaps you could quote the relevant text from me? The point with the analogy is that it is a flawed analogy, rather it is not an analogy at all to the fine-tuning argument. The phrase, "fits staggeringly well," is not a sufficient condition to claim fine tuning. Fine tuning means if the conditions that contain the existence of something were different then that something could not exist. Engineers call these conditions, "tolerances." Physicists call them "initial conditions." Think of other things that man fine-tunes for a purpose and then compare that to life in the universe. Look back at my lock/key example and its corresponding function of opening a door. This is the correct analogy because the lock and key are finely tuned for the purpose of opening the door. Would you claim that the key is NOT designed for the lock to open the door because of the "puddle analogy?" Would you make statements such as this: "Given the key's 'observable universe' it is no surprise the key fits into the lock and the door opens, because it exists! The key does not have knowledge of its existence therefore the key is not finely tuned for the lock for the specific purpose of opening the door. Another point is that ID theory would never claim that the puddle in the hole is best explained by an intelligent agent because it doesn't meet the test of specified complexity. The puddle in the hole is due to law-like necessity. If the hole were of a different size a puddle could still exist so it's not finely tuned. By contrast the key fitting into the lock is NOT due to any law like necessity. It does meet specified complexity because it is a highly improbable arrangement of matter that specifies an independent function, namely the opening of a door. The lock and key are finely tuned to open the door if the tolerances or conditions are withing narrow parameters. We can then infer that they were designed. For future reference if ID claims things are best explained by intelligence, it is better to analogize things that we KNOW are designed rather than puddles in a hole which may or may not be designed. If ID claims a certain structure is finely tuned for a purpose it is better to analogize things that we KNOW are designed for a purpose. If your analogies turn KNOWN designs up on their heads (reasoning that they are not designed or not finely tuned) then I would conclude your analogies are flawed.jazzcat
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Joe @ 63 The OP is about Size of Earth lowering the atmospheric Methane layer, I mentioned bacteria survived in methane because early earth had 1000 times more methane than that we have now. You said methane gets destroyed (ignoring that even with active Methane sink and no continuous production , Methane has 8 years life time,soil sink has 200 years lifetime) so you are neither addressing the issue in OP nor about Hydroxyl Radicals (formed by oxygen), what is your point?Me_Think
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
MT- You are obviously delusional as I said NOTHING about oxygen. However UV will dissociate H2O and that would put some oxygen into the atmosphere. UV will breakdown methane regardless if oxygen is present or not. But anyway you seem to have other issues as you are making things up- things that I never said.Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Joe @ 60 So according to you early Earth had no methane but was full of oxygen - even before photosynthesis ?! If not oxygen, then what else ?Me_Think
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
The fossil record clearly shows a succession of organisms and ecosystems.
That is your opinion
It also supports the nested hierarchy in time.
Only if just about anything can be a nested hierarchy. Gradual evolution doesn't predict a nested hierarchy for the reason Darwin provided and you ignore as if your ignorance means something.Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
UV is just a electromagnetic radiation. It can only break bonds
I know what UV is and it breaks the bonds that make methane what it is. That means methane no longer exists- it is destroyed. The IPCC is talking about methane in our protected atmosphere. Peer-review trumps you, MT.Joe
December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Joe @ 45
UV destroys methane regardless of whether or not oxygen is present. Here is another abstract: UV shielding of early Earth by N2/CH4/CO2 organic haze:
UV is just a electromagnetic radiation. It can only break bonds , the free radical from the CH4 has to combine with some other element to get 'destroyed'. The author seems to specify Nitrogen as the possible element. The author contends that even if there is a chance of methane getting 'destroyed', it wasn't. Even without any protection, Methane is not 'destroyed' completely. It still has a 'life time'. Even with an active, biggest known Methane sink (tropospheric Hydroxyl radical),Methane gets a life time of 8.4 years, assuming no further Methane production.
The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 derived from this loss rate and the global burden is 8.4 years. CH4 loss results in 9.6 years for loss due to tropospheric OH, 120 years for stratospheric loss, and 160 years for the soil sink.( IPPC 3rd assessment report)
Me_Think
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
"depends on the puddle having knowledge"
It takes a mind to 'know', yet you claim that you, and the puddle, have no mind. Since you can't even get that first instance of logic right, why in blue blazes do you expect anyone to take anything else you might say about logic, or reality, seriously?
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)
Moreover, the argument from fine-tuning is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. For instance we 'know' that the initial entropy of the universe was so extremely finely-tuned,,,
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (Roger Penrose - from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)
,,, was so extremely finely-tuned that we should, on materialism, be seeing "highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, (or mud puddles writing shakespeare plays :) ), since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range",,,
Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument The Fine Tuning of the Universe - drcraigvideos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
Moreover, according to the materialistic philosophy, there are no apparent reasons why the value of each transcendent universal constant could not have varied dramatically from what they actually are. In fact, the presumption of materialism expects a fairly large amount of flexibility, indeed chaos, in the underlying constants for the universe. This is since the constants themselves are postulated to randomly 'emerge' from some, as the drcraigvideo illustrated, completely undefined material basis at the Big Bang. In fact if an atheist were ever to be truly consistent in his thinking (which would be a miracle in its own right) he would have to admit that he should a-priori expect variance in the universal laws and constants, like this following astronomer did:
Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006 Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.” The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,, The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed. http://www.space.com/2613-scientists-question-nature-fundamental-laws.html
Indeed, the materialistic worldview is, at its ‘random' base, very antagonistic to the whole ideal that we should find such unchanging laws. This fact alone goes a long way towards explaining why there were no atheists at the founding of the modern scientific revolution. Yet, Christianity, contrary to what atheists would prefer to believe, is very nurturing to such an idea of unchanging universal constants. As C. S. Lewis put it:
“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it.” Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
Moreover, most atheists do not seem to realize that if the universal constants were actually to have been found to have even a small variance in them over deep time then this would destroy our ability to practice science rationally, for it would undermine our ability to mathematically model the universe in a reliable fashion.
"The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge: The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to." Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber - 2006
Verse and Music:
Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans. Hillsong United - You Are Faithful - With Subtitles/Lyrics https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=you+are+faithful&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
bornagain77
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
So an important Design Rule would be to overcome the damaging effects of micro evolution. Innovate to live better, evolve to die yikes.ppolish
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
'micro-evolution' gives us evidence that neo-Darwinism is wrong: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.bornagain77
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
bornagain77: Moreover you have ZERO evidence that random mutation and natural selection can build ANYTHING of functional significance That is assuming that life is not the result of evolutionary processes, that is the question. Just as we don't know that such a designer exists that can create the design necessary. We do know that micro evolution occursvelikovskys
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all. Only one had a puddle.ppolish
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
bornagain77: jazzcat did a great job at 17 of showing where the your ‘logic’ fails. jazzcat's argument depends on the puddle having knowledge which it doesn't have. That's rather the point of the analogy. We can see what the puddle is missing, revealing the fallacious claim of design simply because the hole fits the puddle staggeringly well.Zachriel
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die.
The earth's gravity is fine tuned for life. If there was slightly more, then there would be no human life. The hole is finely tuned to fit the puddle. If the hole was was slightly bigger, then ... nothing. Then ... whatever, who cares. No consequences. That hole would fit whatever puddle. The same water would fit any vast number of puddles bigger or smaller. The same hole would fit an virtually infinite variety of water quantities. Ok, I see. That analogy is supposed to be an argument against fine-tuning. ;-)Silver Asiatic
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Zachriel jazzcat did a great job at 17 of showing where the your 'logic' fails. (I hold that 'not even wrong' is a more than fair assessment of your 'logic') Moreover, what gives you, as an atheistic materialist, the right to use such Theistic concepts as non-material logic and free will to try to prove your point? Remember, you deny that you even have a mind to begin with?!?
"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10344804_736790473055959_5027794313726938258_n.png?oh=32dcc64a81815fd8fbf5884ea44490ed&oe=548E8745&__gda__=1418537725_911886dd89430d275c0e393a46afdb55
To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place!
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/ “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
The fossil record looks nothing like Darwin predicted. The Cambrian explosion by itself proves this point. For you claim that this supports Darwinism is delusional at best and a bald face lie at worse. (my belief is in at worse) Moreover, contrary to what you wrote, you first have to demonstrate that unguided Darwinian processes have the capacity to produce functional complexity/information before you can then postulate those unguided processes as sufficient to explain what we can discern of past life, (which is sudden appearance and stasis), much less explain the unfathomed functional complexity we see in present life!bornagain77
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
humbled: Fossil succession? You might start with the Principle of Superposition. This provides a relative ordering of fossils within the strata. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/topics/time/froshlec8.htmlZachriel
December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply