Yup as far as anyone knows whales are descended from whales. And no one needs to believe they popped into existence- tey could have been placed here by colonizing aliens or even genetically engineered....Joseph
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
How can it conclude that when there isn't any genetic data that supports the alleged transformations?Joseph
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
dmullenix, materialism, particularly the 'randomness/chaos' inherent within the construct of materialism, you simply have no way to prevent absurdities from the 'multiverse', such as the Boltzmann Brain problem, from swamping your atheistic theory for the origin of the universe,,,
Random Infinite Multiverse vs. Uniformity Of Nature - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
Here are a bit more formal proofs refuting the atheistic conjecture of the multiverse:
Bayesian considerations on the multiverse explanation of cosmic fine-tuning - V. Palonen
Conclusions: The four most viable approaches for inference in a possible multiverse and in the presence of an observer selection effect were reviewed. Concerning the ‘assume the observation’ (AO) approach advocated by Sober, Ikeda, and Jefferys, it was shown that this kind of an observer selection effect is justified if and only if the observation is conditionally independent of the hypothesis. In the case of cosmic fine-tuning the observation would be a child of the hypothesis and the two are not independent. It follows that one should use the observation as data and not as a background condition. Hence, the AO approach for cosmic fine-tuning is incorrect.
The self-sampling assumption approach by Bostrom was shown to be inconsistent with probability theory. Several reasons were then given for favoring the ‘this universe’ (TU) approach and main criticisms against TU were answered. A formal argument for TU was given based on our present knowledge. The main result is that even under a multiverse we should use the proposition “this universe is fine-tuned” as data, even if we do not know the ‘true index’ 14 of our universe. It follows that because multiverse hypotheses do not predict fine-tuning for this particular universe any better than a single universe hypothesis, multiverse hypotheses are not adequate explanations for fine-tuning. Conversely, our data on cosmic fine-tuning does not lend support to the multiverse hypotheses. For physics in general, irrespective of whether there really is a multiverse or not, the common-sense result of the above discussion is that we should prefer those theories which best predict (for this or any universe) the phenomena we observe in our universe.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.4013.pdf
The Effect of Infinite Probabilistic Resources on ID and Science (Part 2) - Eric Holloway - July 2011
Excerpt:,, since orderly configurations drop off so quickly as our space of configurations approach infinity, then this shows that infinite resources actually make it extremely easy to discriminate in favor of ID (Intelligent Design) when faced with an orderly configuration. Thus, intelligent design detection becomes more effective as the probabilistic resources increase.
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/the-effect-of-infinite-probabilistic-resources-on-id-and-science-part-2/
But another thing that is completely illogical about your atheistic multiverse conjecture is this:
Are Many Worlds and the Multiverse the Same Idea? - Sean Carroll
Excerpt: When cosmologists talk about “the multiverse,” it’s a slightly poetic term. We really just mean different regions of spacetime, far away so that we can’t observe them, but nevertheless still part of what one might reasonably want to call “the universe.” In inflationary cosmology, however, these different regions can be relatively self-contained — “pocket universes,” as Alan Guth calls them.
http://unitedgeorgians.blogspot.com/2011/08/are-many-worlds-and-multiverse-same.html
This atheistic conjecture of the multiverse CLEARLY does not deal with the 'problem' of the origin of the universe since atheists have just pushed to issue of the origination of space-time & mass-energy back a step:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176
'Now' cannot exist if Time is Infinite Into The Past - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0pdUvQdi4
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."
(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970
Thus the question to be asked, instead of avoided, is where does the mass-energy space-time of this universe come from? Clearly the cause has to be beyond space, time, mass, energy! When we ask this specific question we find our answer! Transcendent, and Dominant, Information, as revealed by quantum entanglement, and quantum teleportation experiments, is the only known entity within science with sufficient causality to bring about the origination of the space-time mass-energy of the universe;
‘Pure transcendent information’ is now shown to be ‘conserved’. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent quantum information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical/material events, past, present, and future, already must exist.) This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of the foundational ‘material’ entity of this universe, energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known ‘material’ means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.)
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
These following studies should, for all practical purposes, shut the multiverse argument down completely:
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation:
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp
Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
“What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/
bornagain77
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
BA77, thanks for the information on Drs. Sheldon, Craig and company. I especially enjoyed the ontological arguments, but haven’t time to go into them at length. It is fascinating to see the existence of God tied to human conception though. Who’d a thunk it?
Dr. Craig’s musings on Roger Penrose, on the other hand, are less interesting. Penrose seems to think that the possibility of our solar system forming instantly by the random collision of particles is worth thinking about, which would explain his weird math, but frankly his argument doesn’t come close to having the panache of the ontological argument. I do agree, however, that Dr. Craig is the world’s greatest living Christian philosopher, which would worry me if I was a Christian.
But no matter, the possibility that THIS universe exists does happen to be 1 or at least it’s within a Descartes of 1. So do you really think that you personally are a Boltzmann brain? Personally, I doubt it. I’m pretty sure that your brain came into existence in the old-fashioned way, like everybody else’s. Which makes Dr. Gordon’s argument look pretty silly.
Maybe he has his own private physics too?dmullenix
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Except taht blind, undirected processes have never been obseved to design anything.
And neither have the assumed designers of biological diversity. Your point?Chas D
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
Did it ever occur to you that the evidence you point to assumes that whales evolved from land mammals
It doesn't assume that, it concludes that.
and does not even cover if the transformations required are even possible?
Developmental mutations are possible. This is a broad principle that one would not be expected to cover again and again and again in every specific cladistic grouping.Chas D
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
So you accept that whales are descended from something - you just don't think we have enough evidence as to what they are descended from?markf
[It’s pretty hard to teach someone who doesn’t want to learn.]
Who are you talking about? Evidences on a large variety of levels point to contrary conclusions that your ilk has been promoting for decades and funded by the pop culture machinery influencing public and private funding. I, for one, am sick of spoiled children motivated by philosophical preferences that happen to put them in a position of compensatory reward for no viable reasons, having their way under the guise of "science".bpragmatic
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
Did it ever occur to you that the evidence you point to assumes that whales evolved from land mammals and does not even cover if the transformations required are even possible?Joseph
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
What terms does it have?
And what testable predictions do you think forensic science and archaeology make?
The following is what I mean by "ID is not anti-evolution":
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.
Then we have:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.
Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
Do you understand that?Joseph
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
If nature, operating freely, ie blind, undirected processes, can account for the event/ object/ structure in question then the design inference isn't even considered.
No murder if it was via natural causes and no artifact if erosion can produce it.
As for centaurs- please reference the peer-reviewed paper that says centaurs are a no-go for evolution.Joseph
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
GinoB,
I say that because it is true. No you can refute that or whine about it- it appears you like to whine...Joseph
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Except taht blind, undirected processes have never been obseved to design anything.Joseph
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
markf-
I am very comfortable with saying "I don't know", and at this point in time that is the only honest answer.
Maybe someday someone will come up with a way to scientifically test the premise that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. When that day comes, if I am still alive, I will eagerly listen.Joseph
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Well Joseph, even we knew nothing about the fossil record of whales, there are two alternatives:
- either whales are descended from some other living thing with modification
or
- they popped into existence as living breathing whales at some time in the last 4 billion years
which seems the more plausible to you (forget about whether it is designed or not for a moment - we are only talking about patterns of descent)markf
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
(and the specified complexity in the original life referring to DNA.)bbigej
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
I would also add the fine tuning of the universe.bbigej
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Perhaps you don't realize that ID is by it's very nature limited in it's explanatory scope. ID theory simply affirms that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." In principle, ID is compatible with common descent, though I and many others within the ID community are skeptical of the concept. The "certain features", Dr. Liddle, that ID purports to explain better than undirected processes are the specified complexity found in the original life and irreducible complexity.bbigej
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
wallstreeter43
I wonder how much money it will take to make that newly found 49 million year whale fossil go away. Shhh let’s not tell anyone that this whale was on the earth at the same time as ambulocetus. It will be our little secret.
So who discovered, dated, analysed and published this new whale bone? Some whistleblower from the DI? No!!! A bloody evolutionist! Did no-one think to quietly 'disappear' dis guy? Then they go and do a damn press release! We in the evolutionary illuminati take a very dim view of the publication of honest data that refines previous understanding. Don't be surprised to see him swimming with dose paraphyletic fishes.Chas D
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Well, tell me what terms you think are inadequately defined.
And of course forensic science and archaeology make testable predictions.
I'm waiting for a comparable prediction from ID.
And I have no idea what you mean by "ID is not anti-evolution".
Perhaps you could define how you are using the term "anti-evolution" in that sentence.Elizabeth Liddle
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Liddle:
“ID is not an explanatory model. To be an explanatory model it would have to make differential predictions. “An Intelligent Designer did it”, without any constraints on the design or fabrication methods of the designer makes no differential predictions, so it is not an explanatory model. A model that can explain anything explains nothing.”
====
What part of my post where I said:
“However, to be totally fair, the same problem of origins exists for I.D. and Creationism because no one was actually there.”
didn’t you actually get ???
—-
Tell me a possible observation that ID could not explain. As I've just said to Eocene, evolutionary theory couldn't explain centaurs, or flying horses, or, for that matter, precambrian rabbits.
There are plenty of possible observations that the ToE could not explain. Name me one thing that an Intelligent Designer could not do. That is why ID is not an explanatory theory, and the ToE is. The ToE explains our pattern of observations and non-observations. ID cannot.
Liddle:
“The way the scientific method works, for better or worse, is that the onus is on the person proposing an explanatory model to show that their model explains the data better than some alternative model.”
====
Except I don’t have your particular ‘eye of faith’ to believe what the cartoonist philosophers are trying to preach and teach.
—-
That is not really a response to my point. I am not asking you to have an "eye of faith". All you have to do is estimate the fit of your model to the data. But you can't do that if your model could fit any data you could possibly imagine.
Liddle:
“If you want to shift the burden to evolutionary biologists, you need to present a model that explains the data better than current evolutionary models.”
====
I’m not burden shifting anything. The subject is the crackpot Warner Brothers Cartoon presented as evidence. The mythical creatures invented by the minds of biological philosophers don’t work for me. There are way too many problems presented as has in the past been mentioned by Berlinkski, which by the way he doesn’t necessarily mind if there is actually evidence, it’s simply that the lame RomperRoom approach they are trying to shove down everyone’s throat just doesn’t work.
—-
Would you like to present some actual citations here? I have no idea what you mean by "crackpot Warner Brothers Cartoon presented as evidence".
Liddle:
“Merely claiming that current evolutionary models do not explain all the data does not support ID.”
====
Let’s be honest, the model above is nothing more than a cartoon and somebody else’s wet dream of an imaginary religious vision of what they want to read into what is nothing more than fossil tea leaves. Again, I don’t have your ‘eye of faith’ to believe in evolution by some oddball cartoony pseudo-evidence.
—-
Well, of course you are entitled to your view. Obviously I don't share your evaluation of the evidence.
Liddle:
“Why do you think that early whales had legs?”
====
This is a dumb question. I don’t have in my posession your ‘eye of faith’ on the matter. Shouldn’t you be asking this kind of question to one of your fellow Church members ???
Well, no, it's not a dumb question. Cetacean comparative anatomy is distributed into a tree with creatures with legs at the node.
That's evidence. It demands explanation. The ToE provides a coherent explanation. ID doesn't even attempt one. Although, it has to be said, many ID proponents, including Behe, as far as I know, accepts the evidence for common ancestry.Elizabeth Liddle
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
The ToE is not a theory that can explain anything. It couldn't explain centaurs, as I've already said.
Now, name a single possible observation that ID could not explain.Elizabeth Liddle
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Liddle:
“This is not a “shell game”, and equivocating between “common sense” usages and a specific scientific usage is just that, equivocating, and is likely to result in a fallacious inference.”
====
This is hilarious. You know full well EXACTLY what is meant by ‘defíntion shell gaming’. The idiotic crackpot definitions of “information” being ‘rocks in a landslide’ or information is patterns in snowflakes or information is gravity.. I’ve even had an atheist/Evolutionist attempt to shove down my throat with a shell game of the term you just used “common sense”. Saying what is common sense to me is not common sense to someone else. Without admitting anything, you know full well what these games are all about.
Oh, I know what "shell games" are about Eocene. Now, give me an example of the word "information" being used in a scientific paper about evolution but not being precisely defined, or, if you prefer, an example of the equivocation with the term.
There are many definitions of information, so clearly it is important for anyone making a claim that includes the word to state how they are defining the term.
—-
Liddle:
“Evolutionary theory is a model, constantly subject to revision in the light of new data.”
====
No, Evolutionary Theory is another historical philosophical ideological worldview which actually requires tremendous amounts of faith just like any other religion.
—-
Well, I guess if you think that you think it, but unless you support your view, it isn't going to be very persuasive. In contrast, there is clear evidence in the scientific literature that the theory is subject to constant revision and refinement. For instance, we now know much more about the role of drift than Darwin dreamt of, indeed we now know vastly more than Darwin did about the mechanisms of inheritance.
Liddle:
“ID is not an alternative theory to current evolutionary models. It explains nothing, simply because “an ID” could explain anything.”
====
I’m not exactly part of the ID movement, but sure it’s just as viable as anything else. It simply irritates you and you don’t like it because you have issues with the Catholic Church which I couldn’t care less about.(no offense anyone who is) The funny thing is, if some group suddenly appeared on the scene bashing Christianity and claiming life arose as a result of Theory of Aliens, you people would be kool with that type of I.D.
—-
You have no idea what "irritates" me, Eocene - please don't make unsupported inferences about what is going on in my head! ID is not an alternative theory because it doesn't provide differential predictions. If you have an ID theory that does, feel free to give it.
Liddle:
“It(Intelligent Design) may be true, but it is not an explanatory theory.”
====
And yet as humans our whole world relates to intelligent designing. We understand the concepts of just what it is to invent, create and devise for purpose and intent things that are sophisticated and complex for a intended purpose. The inference is that the sophisticated mechanisms in nature just might have also have had a possible intelligent designer as opposed to all these magnificent things coming about by nothing more than blind pointless indifference without purpose or intent.
Sure, but that's not an explanatory theory. Anything "just might also have had a possible intelligent designer". To explain phenomena you have to make differential predictions. If a theory can explain any phenomenon, then it's not an explanation at all. It's tantamount to saying: anything can happen.
When pressed to prove how blind chance without purpose does anything, we instead get scientific cheating crackpots using intelligent design to rig an experiment and then proceed to exclaim evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact. Well there’s well known old expression, “Don’t urinate on my back and tell me it’s raing”.
No, you don't. Or, if you do, please give me a citation.
Evolution is only a "fact" in the sense that one definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency over time", and this is observed to occur. So it's as near as we ever get to a fact in science. The "Theory of Evolution" is the theory that explains the observed fact that populations evolve (in the sense that allele frequencies change over time) and adapt (in the sense that alleles that tend to result in phenotypes with enhanced reproductive success in the current environment become more prevalent). The ToE is also a theory that explains why anatomical features of organisms are distributed in a nested hierarchy, and why genetic features are also thus distributed, with some interesting exceptions. In other words it explains what we do observe, and it also explains what we do not observe (centaurs, for instance).
In contrast, ID explains none of these observations, or rather, it could explain any observation we could possibly make, and something that could explain any possible observation explains none of them.Elizabeth Liddle
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
butifnot
Evos talk like there’s a buffet of evidence and then all we get are a few crumbs.
There's this magic thing called Google that will direct you to hundreds of sites covering the evidence for cetacean evolution.
cetacean evolution
If you want more technical details you can search Google Scholar and find the primary research literature on the subject.
more on cetacean evolution
It's pretty hard to teach someone who doesn't want to learn.GinoB
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
And BTW in order to even consider a design inference we must first eliminate your position! So eliminating your position does indeed support ID.
Due to the enormous complexity of the interactions both within and without the organism, one design option might be to create multiple variants and see which one came out on top, keeping the best for further breeding. Eliminating 'our' position eliminates a demonstrably effective design strategy.Chas D
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
dmullenix, you, apparently without any reflection whatsoever, and a whole bunch of misleading rhetoric born out of your atheistic dogmatism, state:
All of the multiverse theories provide mechanisms for generating universes, which makes the probability of universes being created 1.
To which Dr. Sheldon recently retorted:
The Multiverse Gods, final part - Robert Sheldon - June 2011
Excerpt: And so in our long journey through the purgatory of multiverse-theory, we discover as we previously discovered for materialism, there are two solutions, and only two. Either William Lane Craig is correct and multiverse-theory is just another ontological proof a personal Creator, or we follow Nietzsche into the dark nihilism of the loss of reason. Heaven or hell, there are no other solutions.
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/30/the_multiverse_gods,_final_part.thtml
William Lane Craig also, in his usual non nonsense fashion, stated;
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/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5741&printer_friendly=1
Moreover dmullenix, though you will, in all likelihood, absolutely refuse to acknowledge this point because of your Dogmatic Atheism, your argument for the probability of the universe being created, of 1, out of the infinite probabilistic resources of the multiverse, is also a the very argument that guarantees the probability of the existence of God to be 1;
The only other theory possible for the universe’s creation, other than a God-centered hypothesis, is some purposeless materialistic theory based on blind chance. Materialistic blind chance only, seemingly, escapes being completely crushed, by the overwhelming weight of evidence for design, by appealing to an infinity of other un-testable universes in which all other possibilities have been played out. Yet there is no hard physical evidence to support this blind chance conjecture. In fact, the 'infinite multiverse' conjecture suffers from some very serious flaws of logic. For instance exactly which laws of physics, arising from which material basis, are telling all the other natural laws in physics what, how and when, to do the many precise unchanging things they do in these other universes? Plus, if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. Thus the atheist's infinite multiverse conjecture defeats itself by appealing to its own infinite probabilistic resource!!!
The preceding argument has actually been made into a formal philosophical proof:
Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4
The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4
I like the following concluding comment about the ontological argument from the Dr. Plantinga video:
"God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit."
Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ
Music and Verse:
Todd Agnew - Fragile Breath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFWz4T0MhkM
Psalm 115:2-3
Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
bornagain77
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Joseph
There isn’t any evidence that whales descended from land mammals- there isn’t any way to test the claim.
Do you ever do anything in these conversations besides cover your ears like a 6-year old and scream "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!!" ?GinoB
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Yaeh and MAYBE someday your position will have some research that supports your position!But until then do keep those promissory notes a comin’….
Ah, my daily dive into Mirrorworld, where ID is an active science and evolution a left-field idea desperately in need of some factual investigation!Chas D
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
We still need a blind watchmaker explanation for anything biological. As for aftethe-fact- the theory of evolution is entirely after-the-fact.Joseph