Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 08:29 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:11 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(14-06-2016 05:48 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  the whole idea of the universe needing to be finely tuned cracks me up. so god just haphazardly tossed the shit out there, then had to make adjustments to his sloppy work? id like to see a universe that is not so finely tuned in order to compare.

Not needing to be fine-tuned, it is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent. I think it is the gravitational force which if you had a measuring tape and stretched it from one end of the universe to the other end, if you moved the gravitational constant one inch in either direction, life would not exist.

The cosmological constant is the most fine-tuned constant at 1/10^120. There are 10^80 elementary particles estimated in the known universe to give you an idea of that figure.

There are over 30 other finely tuned constants and if any one was changed in the slightest bit, life would not exist.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

It is dishonest to directly take someone else's work without attribution.

You copied and pasted that without attribution (and I suspect without understanding). You are dishonest. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(14-06-2016 05:37 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You chose number 2 - You are dishonest, fortunately your dishonesty works only on you, it's not going to fly on this forum.

I notice that you want to pretend to accept science, saying that our DNA goes back to the mythical Adam and Eve.

It goes back further than that, it goes back to non-human primate ancestors up to and including endogenous retroviruses.

Understand what that means?

We inherited the genetic markers of viruses from our primate ancestors, long before humans existed, these viral markers were in primates and they were passed down to us.

1.Viruses existed before humans and were in the DNA of our primate ancestors.

2.We inherited these same DNA.

Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Your mythology does not stand up to scientific evidence.

But you'll no doubt just make up more stories to try to reconcile science with myth.

DNA goes back to a single man and single women. Read about it.

Read about it where? In a children's myth book?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-06-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 07:11 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Not needing to be fine-tuned, it is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent. I think it is the gravitational force which if you had a measuring tape and stretched it from one end of the universe to the other end, if you moved the gravitational constant one inch in either direction, life would not exist.

The cosmological constant is the most fine-tuned constant at 1/10^120. There are 10^80 elementary particles estimated in the known universe to give you an idea of that figure.

There are over 30 other finely tuned constants and if any one was changed in the slightest bit, life would not exist.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

It's amazing that you copied and pasted all of these little bits of fine tuning "proof" and then still there is no reason to believe any of it was due to an intelligence or that intelligence is Yahweh or any creator God for that matter.

You're looking at it totally backwards, life has evolved and adapted to exist on this planet. If we take all of the elements of our universe including all the atoms, elements and chemicals that naturally flow together, create reactions and eventually have stars, planets, black holes, it's easy to see there is certain order to how it all works but humans like order, we can't randomize. In reality it's all very chaotic, there is no real "design" to any of it.

If we were to change one of the fine tuning examples then life would either not exist or it would look different, a new unique life suited for existence on a planet that is slightly further from the sun for example. We exist because of the planet we live on, the planet does not exist because of us. We are not so important that an entire universe was created and "fined tuned" for our existence, we exist because of the universe, not the other way around. Our organic bits and pieces evolved slowly over billions of years, it didn't just happen.

It's something called natural selection, you should read about it and yes it does require random mutations but after time adaptation comes into play and it's very important, we adapted, all life adapted for this planet and looking at it backwards it can imply a creator or a designer but nope, we are the result of chance, lucky chance, fantastic chance but still chance and the wonderful universe and it's mixed up soup of metals and gases all coming together, it's even more amazing than you give it credit for.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SitaSky's post
15-06-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
fuck it

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
15-06-2016, 10:58 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2016 11:18 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 08:06 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...frica.html

What the fuck is that? And how does it even come close to addressing any of the things I brought up? But since you brought it up, I'll address it.

So many errors in it, too. My word, where to start?

If humans came Out of Africa, we would expect the second-highest rate of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East, since that's where they went first upon leaving the African continent.

It also depends on exactly what you mean by "humans", since there were several other varieties of human living across the world when modern-type Homo sapiens, with our vertical foreheads and other neotenous (childlike) facial features emerged from Africa, and we know there was interbreeding among those-- that is what your article's author butchers in trying to shift the origins of humanity to the Middle East.

Instead of trying to back-write the science to fit with your "maybe it really was Eden, like the Bible says" ideas, try sticking with how we know genetics actually works. There is no serious question that the pre-humans (called hominids) were in Africa, going back to a form we'd call recognizably pre-human by 3 million years ago (7MYA if you count Ardipithecus) and that they left Africa about 60,000-100,000 years ago to settle lands that were already occupied (for the previous 300,000 years or more) by Homo erectus. There is strong/overwhelming evidence that there were a couple of versions of descendant species of Homo erectus that had evolved by the point modern humans got there, the Neandertals and the Denisovans, derived from the H. erectus species that originated in Africa (and became modern humans, there) and left to colonize the rest of the globe except for the New World and Australia (modern humans would eventually accomplish that). The DNA evidence shows that there was significant interbreeding with the newly-arrived H. sapiens in Asia and Europe, as we show evidence of DNA markers from Neandertals, Denisovans, and some as-yet undiscovered third species in central Asia. In other words, what the scientists are talking about, with respect to gene flow, has to do with migrations through the Middle East, and not to do with a possibility of a Middle Eastern origin for our species.

There exist literally tons of evidence (in the form of fossilized bones) that humanity originated in Africa and spread out in a series of migration waves and interbreeding events, with anatomically modern humans being the last group to leave.

If you would like some more information about what we know about human origins, and the actual state of the debate over exactly how it happened, I can recommend a few articles.

The first is a good analysis of the basic issues with the Out of Africa model and its main competitor, the Multiregional model:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

This one should help you to understand the latest on our knowledge of interbreeding between the already-established Neandertals/Denisovans and modern humans:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...133514.htm

This is the National Genographic Project, which tracks the DNA of modern populations to "connect the dots" on what actually happened as humans spread through the world, interacted, migrated, and interbred. It also explains more about the Denisovans and modern populations which contain a small amount of their DNA:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/

Finally, this is what we know about ancient populations of pre-humans in Africa, which have not been found anywhere else:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

It is particularly insulting to the scientists of the world that you (via that author) would claim that we did not consider the possibility that humans originated outside of Africa, because that is in fact what WAS presumed for quite a long time. Indeed, the hoax that so many Creationists like to point to, Piltdown Man, was put together and so readily accepted because it fit the prejudices of the Victorian Brits of the day, being found in England, and it was only later, after the evidence so strongly pointed to Africa, that others began to seriously question the Piltdown find. [Edit to Add: Most non-British scientists and many British scientists did doubt the Piltdown find from the beginning, because it didn't fit well with what was already known, but there was not yet an available chemical method of testing it to disprove it.]

Is this getting through to you? Or are you just going to butcher some more science to fit into your presuppositions, in the hopes that it will make you sound smart?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-06-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 08:45 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 07:11 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Not needing to be fine-tuned, it is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent. I think it is the gravitational force which if you had a measuring tape and stretched it from one end of the universe to the other end, if you moved the gravitational constant one inch in either direction, life would not exist.

The cosmological constant is the most fine-tuned constant at 1/10^120. There are 10^80 elementary particles estimated in the known universe to give you an idea of that figure.

There are over 30 other finely tuned constants and if any one was changed in the slightest bit, life would not exist.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

It's amazing that you copied and pasted all of these little bits of fine tuning "proof" and then still there is no reason to believe any of it was due to an intelligence or that intelligence is Yahweh or any creator God for that matter.

You're looking at it totally backwards, life has evolved and adapted to exist on this planet. If we take all of the elements of our universe including all the atoms, elements and chemicals that naturally flow together, create reactions and eventually have stars, planets, black holes, it's easy to see there is certain order to how it all works but humans like order, we can't randomize. In reality it's all very chaotic, there is no real "design" to any of it.

If we were to change one of the fine tuning examples then life would either not exist or it would look different, a new unique life suited for existence on a planet that is slightly further from the sun for example. We exist because of the planet we live on, the planet does not exist because of us. We are not so important that an entire universe was created and "fined tuned" for our existence, we exist because of the universe, not the other way around. Our organic bits and pieces evolved slowly over billions of years, it didn't just happen.

It's something called natural selection, you should read about it and yes it does require random mutations but after time adaptation comes into play and it's very important, we adapted, all life adapted for this planet and looking at it backwards it can imply a creator or a designer but nope, we are the result of chance, lucky chance, fantastic chance but still chance and the wonderful universe and it's mixed up soup of metals and gases all coming together, it's even more amazing than you give it credit for.

You have way too much faith in blind dumb luck impossible random chance!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 09:45 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(16-06-2016 09:37 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  You have way too much faith in blind dumb luck impossible random chance!

I don't think you have any idea of what those words mean, especially in context with what she said.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-06-2016, 09:46 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2016 09:54 PM by CDF47.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(15-06-2016 10:58 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 08:06 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...frica.html

What the fuck is that? And how does it even come close to addressing any of the things I brought up? But since you brought it up, I'll address it.

So many errors in it, too. My word, where to start?

If humans came Out of Africa, we would expect the second-highest rate of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East, since that's where they went first upon leaving the African continent.

It also depends on exactly what you mean by "humans", since there were several other varieties of human living across the world when modern-type Homo sapiens, with our vertical foreheads and other neotenous (childlike) facial features emerged from Africa, and we know there was interbreeding among those-- that is what your article's author butchers in trying to shift the origins of humanity to the Middle East.

Instead of trying to back-write the science to fit with your "maybe it really was Eden, like the Bible says" ideas, try sticking with how we know genetics actually works. There is no serious question that the pre-humans (called hominids) were in Africa, going back to a form we'd call recognizably pre-human by 3 million years ago (7MYA if you count Ardipithecus) and that they left Africa about 60,000-100,000 years ago to settle lands that were already occupied (for the previous 300,000 years or more) by Homo erectus. There is strong/overwhelming evidence that there were a couple of versions of descendant species of Homo erectus that had evolved by the point modern humans got there, the Neandertals and the Denisovans, derived from the H. erectus species that originated in Africa (and became modern humans, there) and left to colonize the rest of the globe except for the New World and Australia (modern humans would eventually accomplish that). The DNA evidence shows that there was significant interbreeding with the newly-arrived H. sapiens in Asia and Europe, as we show evidence of DNA markers from Neandertals, Denisovans, and some as-yet undiscovered third species in central Asia. In other words, what the scientists are talking about, with respect to gene flow, has to do with migrations through the Middle East, and not to do with a possibility of a Middle Eastern origin for our species.

There exist literally tons of evidence (in the form of fossilized bones) that humanity originated in Africa and spread out in a series of migration waves and interbreeding events, with anatomically modern humans being the last group to leave.

If you would like some more information about what we know about human origins, and the actual state of the debate over exactly how it happened, I can recommend a few articles.

The first is a good analysis of the basic issues with the Out of Africa model and its main competitor, the Multiregional model:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

This one should help you to understand the latest on our knowledge of interbreeding between the already-established Neandertals/Denisovans and modern humans:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...133514.htm

This is the National Genographic Project, which tracks the DNA of modern populations to "connect the dots" on what actually happened as humans spread through the world, interacted, migrated, and interbred. It also explains more about the Denisovans and modern populations which contain a small amount of their DNA:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/

Finally, this is what we know about ancient populations of pre-humans in Africa, which have not been found anywhere else:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

It is particularly insulting to the scientists of the world that you (via that author) would claim that we did not consider the possibility that humans originated outside of Africa, because that is in fact what WAS presumed for quite a long time. Indeed, the hoax that so many Creationists like to point to, Piltdown Man, was put together and so readily accepted because it fit the prejudices of the Victorian Brits of the day, being found in England, and it was only later, after the evidence so strongly pointed to Africa, that others began to seriously question the Piltdown find. [Edit to Add: Most non-British scientists and many British scientists did doubt the Piltdown find from the beginning, because it didn't fit well with what was already known, but there was not yet an available chemical method of testing it to disprove it.]

Is this getting through to you? Or are you just going to butcher some more science to fit into your presuppositions, in the hopes that it will make you sound smart?

There is still is a debate on whether life started in mid-east or Africa.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...n-man.html

This would date modern man to 400,000 years old which is much older than the 200,000 year old dates from Africa. These teeth were discovered in the mid-east.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 09:48 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2016 09:54 PM by CDF47.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(16-06-2016 09:45 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 09:37 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  You have way too much faith in blind dumb luck impossible random chance!

I don't think you have any idea of what those words mean, especially in context with what she said.

Blind Dumb Luck Random Chance Definition:

Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

As far as Neanderthals, I think they belonged to the animal kingdom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2016 09:55 PM by Chas.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(16-06-2016 09:46 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  There is still is a debate on whether life started in mid-east or Africa.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...n-man.html

This would date modern man to 400,000 years old which is much older than the 200,000 year old dates from Africa. These teeth were discovered in the mid-east.

The article does not say what you seem to think it says. It is 8 teeth similar to Homo sapiens at a site very close to Africa.
Modern humans were not the first or only toolmakers.

And it is a Daily Mail article, not a scientific paper.

Quote:As far as Neanderthals, I think they belonged to the animal kingdom.

Humans belong to the animal kingdom. Drinking Beverage

I suggest you read a book on evolution. A real one, not some religious bullshit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: