The extreme fine tuning of light

Bornagain77

Me_Think, what no apology from you for falsely attributing a statement to me I did not make?,,, Do you even care that you lied about what I said???

If you quote someone on BigBang being an explosion and I say Big Bang was not an explosion, how is that a lie?

Perhaps the science writer for Time magazine was wrong on a technical detail, but you provided no citation to make me take your word over his. Your word, Which I remind, I caught you lying about what I said!

You want a citation for basic physics?!! Wavelength reduces with increasing temperature. At Planck time T was 10^32K, what do you think was the wavelength - 390 to 700 nm ??!!

I really don’t worry about the 23,000 year rounding error (400,000 is close enough), but as to you wanting to rename the ‘dark age’ of the universe as the ‘age of light’, well, I guess you just want to re-write science just so to disagree with a Christian Theist?

It is not about rounding error, Light could have escaped only after the temperature cooled to 5000 degrees so after 400,000 rounding, there is no 'dark Age' as more Light would have escaped the hot plasma (than at 378,000 years point ) and the universe would be lit even more !!

If you can make a mistake so grievous in your science, apparently only to defend you atheism, or if you are simply lying as you did about what I said, then, if no apology, I guess I’m done here with you. The last word is all your

As you can see from above facts, it was you who was grievous mistaken in defending your religious views. Of course the last words can only belong to one who tells the truth. Me_Think

Me_Think, what no apology from you for falsely attributing a statement to me I did not make?,,, Do you even care that you lied about what I said??? Moreover, I quoted Michael D. Lemonick science writer for Time magazine for this quote: "If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions" Perhaps the science writer for Time magazine was wrong on a technical detail, but you provided no citation to make me take your word over his. Your word, Which I remind, I caught you lying (i.e. falsely attributing) about what I said! as to this claim of yours "so the baby universe entered Age of Light after 378,000 years" I really don't worry about the 23,000 year rounding error (400,000 is close enough), but as to you wanting to rename the 'dark age' of the universe as the 'age of light', well, I guess you just want to re-write science just so to disagree with a Christian Theist? Or else you just don't care how many lies you have to tell in order to defend your atheism??? History of the Universe - Timeline Graph Image http://www.der-kosmos.de/pics/CMB_Timeline300_gr.jpg If you can make a fundamental mistake so grievous in your science (renaming an entire age), apparently only to defend your atheism, (or if you are simply lying as you did about what I said), then, if no apology, I guess I'm done here with you. The last word is all yours! bornagain77

You falsely attributed something to me I never said. Moreover, The extraordinary precision of the Big Bang is certainly nothing for a materialist/atheist to take comfort in! “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws....The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds

You didn't mention Big Bang as an explosion but you quoted words of others like 'flash of light',and yet again you quote about Big Bang explosion above. There is no extraordinary precision. All constants break down going back to singularity. Even General relativity and QM breaks down. No one knows why gravity is so weak. If constants were constants, singularity calculations would be so easy. Me_Think

bornagain77 @ 13

If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions

You could not see 'bright white light' everywhere after BigBang as the wavelength would be close to 10^-12 (Gamma Rays) !

This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles

In fact only after 378,000 yrs did the universe cool to 5,000 degrees Celsius, and the photons of light were allowed to escape the dense plasma, so the baby universe entered Age of Light after 378,000 years. Me_Think

Me_Think actually As well as the universe having a transcendent beginning, thus confirming the postulation in Genesis 1:1 for a transcendent origin of the universe, the following recent discovery of a 'Dark Age' for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11. For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the "Big Bang" shone forth at that time. This "light" is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation. This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium. It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. (How The Stars Were Born - Michael D. Lemonick) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376229-2,00.html Job 38:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!" Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sl0Ln3Ptb8 Job 26:10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. Big Bang After its (The Big Bang's) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Moreover, I did not claim the Big Bang was a chaotic explosion, (which is something that would be expected under your materialistic premises if materialism is forced to try to explain a beginning for the universe as it currently is forced to try to do). You falsely attributed something to me I never said. Moreover, The extraordinary precision of the Big Bang is certainly nothing for a materialist/atheist to take comfort in! "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - closing statement of the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=901f7oC_Pik&feature=player_detailpage#t=360s bornagain77

boragain77 , jazzcat Big Bang was not an explosion, it was rapid expansion. There was no light during Big Bang. In fact it was so hot for 378,000 yrs after Big Bang that photons couldn't escape the plasma, so there was no light till the universe cooled to 5,000 degrees. Moreover, According to Genesis :

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Earth and heavens came before light. Collin and ppolish No religion has got the universe creation right - see comment above about 'Let there be light' Tim @ 10 I admire Nature as much as you do, but your 'new syllogism' is not enough to prove a creator. Me_Think

Collin:

You can just say, “For now, all I know is that there was a creator.” And then explore the religions to see if they make sense. You could try praying to God to see if you get guidance.

That isn't a reliable method, Collin. Practically every religion has adherents who will tell you, quite sincerely, that they found the truth after praying for divine guidance. They can't all be right, because their "truths" conflict. keith s

Me_Think, Lest you think I am piling on, please ignore any snarkiness that may creep into this comment. I have not done/nor can I do a completely exhaustive search of world religions, but I do believe that BA77 is exactly on target with his comments concerning omnipotence and pantheism. Further, it will do no good to seek further "proof" in the sense of a compelling evidence for some people. There is a new syllogism (this version I borrowed from James Sire and severely tweaked ) that sort of goes like this: Premise 1: Look at the Universe around you from ABBA to ZZTOP, from otters to oscilloscopes from the charming sonatas of Prokofiev to the double tracking snot of my charming niece Nessa. Premise 2: Therefore, God exists. (Yes, THAT God.) Conclusion: You either get it or you don't. We admit it: It is a strange syllogism. But allowing it for a moment will allow you to see that many ID advocates who also call themselves Christian (actually, also some who do not self-identify in the same way) understand that ID does not prove the Christian God in the sense many critics demand, and yet ID is consonant with the God of Christianity and other western faiths. Conversely, we so often we hear complaints from ID critics about how ID has failed to prove the God of Christianity, can't do so in principle, and thus is a failed project, as if there are no other ways of knowing. Suffice to say, it is hard to be patient with people who call us rubes, critics who, at the very same time, fail to understand the subtlety of the aforementioned argument. Tim

Listening In | A conversation with Intelligent Design advocate Stephen Meyer https://soundcloud.com/world-news-group/listening-in-a-conversation-with-intelligent-design-advocate-stephen-meyer Stephen Meyer's Dangerous Idea: Counsels Theistic Evolutionists and Others to "Do Their Homework" on the Design Question - December 11, 2014 Excerpt: I think the first question is this question of design or no design, materialism or theism. What does the science seem to favor? Which of those two worldviews does it favor? Then after that, I think there are a lot of questions of biblical interpretation that people can rightly sink their teeth into. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/what_a_concept_091951.html also of related interest to 'doing your homework' is Phinehas's excellent response to keith s https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/fine-tuning/eric-metaxas-on-the-unlikelihood-of-our-existence/#comment-536316 bornagain77

That is a great strategy, Collin. It is not "which god" as MeThink mocks/asks, but which religion/theory .Humans have sensed God from very early on and come up with many religion/theories. How would one start looking at all the religions? I would suggest a BC/AD split. Religions before Jesus walked the Earth and religions after. I have posted a video from Cosmologist Dr Ross a couple of times that investigates which religion matches the science. Judeo/Christian it is. It is the GUT of religions. ppolish

Me_Think, You can just say, "For now, all I know is that there was a creator." And then explore the religions to see if they make sense. You could try praying to God to see if you get guidance. For "God" you could say "Creator" as you understand him based on the science you have learned. Collin

Me Think You raise an important point. Even if we concluded from evidence of fine-tuning that our universe was designed, that alone would not allow us to identify who the designer was. The same point is similar to the design in life. Even if we concluded from the evidence of Irreducible Complexity or Complex Specified Information that the origin of life was designed, that alone would not allow us to identify who the designer was. This further inference (Separate from ID theory) as to who the designer might be includes other lines of evidence (theological, historical, philosophical). You stated, "Every religion has their own God and have their own religious text about how the universe was created." Perhaps you could clarify, do all religions have text about how the universe was created or do all religions have text about the universe in general? To my knowledge, only monotheism (Judaism/Christianity/Muslim) texts describe a created universe by a creator God. All others describe an eternal universe with God(s) creating from within (pantheistic). "other religions don't have a timetable of universe creation." That is true, however there are those that do, and which ones match the scientific evidence? This is one interpretation of Genesis 1 to the scientific evidence. Conclusion, "Of all the "holy books" the Bible is the only book that correctly describes the order of creation as revealed through science." http://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html jazzcat

Verse:

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

The following video and articles are very suggestive as to providing almost tangible proof for God 'speaking' reality into existence:

Amazing Resonance Experiment! - video (varying geometric patterns correlate to changing frequencies) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w Photons and Phonons Excerpt: You see, the primary Planck-Law (E=hf) is metaphysical and independent on the inertia distribution of the solid states.,,, Both, photon and phonon carry massequivalent energy m=E/c2=hf/c2. The matter-light interaction so is rendered electromagnetically noninertial for the photon and becomes acoustically inertial for the phonons; both however subject to Bose-Einstein stochastic wave mechanics incorporative the Planck-Law.,, Where, how and why does E=hf correctly and experimentally verifiably describe the quantum mechanics of energy propagation?,,, http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id135.html Phonon Excerpt: In physics, a phonon,, represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations,, The name phonon,, translates as sound or voice because long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

semi related:

Engineers make sound (with high enough frequency) to bend light on a computer chip - Nov 26, 2014 Excerpt: "Our breakthrough is to integrate optical circuits in the same layer of material with acoustic devices in order to attain extreme strong interaction between light and sound waves,",, The researchers used the state-of-the-art nanofabrication technology to make arrays of electrodes with a width of only 100 nanometers (0.00001 centimeters) to excite sound waves at an unprecedented high frequency that is higher than 10 GHz, the frequency used for satellite communications. "What's remarkable is that at this high frequency, the wavelength of the sound is even shorter than the wavelength of light. This is achieved for the first time on a chip,",, They are investigating the interaction between single photons (the fundamental quantum unit of light) and single phonons (the fundamental quantum unit of sound). The researcher plan to use sound waves as the information carriers for quantum computing. http://phys.org/news/2014-11-loud-chip.html

Music:

Awesome God With Lyrics Michael W Smith https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gygRtVkq5iM

bornagain77

Me_Think, contrary to what you believe, among all the ancient 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0

Here are some quotes that reflect that tight correspondence between Genesis and what was discovered for the beginning of the universe:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

Moreover, the fact that Theism, Christian Theism in particular, has the correct ontology so as to provide the correct epitemological basis for understanding the universe (i.e. the correct conceptual basis for 'doing science'), is verified by the fact that modern science was, contrary to what Tyson told you in Cosmos II, born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and out of that worldview alone!

The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens.,,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/ The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

a note of related interest:

Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html

bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 1

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe

The obvious question is- which God are we talking about ? Every religion has their own God and have their own religious text about how universe was created. AFAIK other religions don't have a timetable of universe creation; some have multiple Gods. It seems some Gods are omnipotent while others had specific sphere of influence, while some didn't bother to create universe within a certain time-frame. Where did they meet to decide on universe's design ?(Sorry if that felt flippant) Me_Think

One type of light sensitive cell, the rod, can detect a single photon. For visible light the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye.

William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html

also of note to the fine tuning of light, the remnant of light left over from the creation event of the Big Bang is also fine-tuned for 'discoverability':

The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability - Robin Collins - March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Examples of fine - tuning for discoverability. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near - optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated). In every case that I was able to make calculations regarding whether the fundamental parameters of physics are optimized in this way, they appear to pass the test.[iv] This alone is significant since this hypothesis is falsifiable in the sense that one could find data that potentially disconfirms it – namely, cases in which as best as we can determining, such as a case in which changing the value of a fundamental parameter – such as the fine - structure constant – increases discoverability while not negatively affecting livability.[v] Below, I will look at a case from cosmology where this thesis could have been disconfirmed but was not.,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ...the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti - matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near - optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists -- to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon - baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf

bornagain77

notes: Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley http://www.leaderu.com/offices//bradley/docs/scievidence.html Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water - graphs http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery – (Privileged Planet excerpt)video https://vimeo.com/114136732 http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887 Michael Denton: Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/09/michael_denton_remarkable_coin.html bornagain77