Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)|
No Floyd, you supplied a rebuttal, and a pretty lame one too. A refutation addresses and overturns the opponent's argument, which you have not done.
| No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself. Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.|
You yourself state their hypothesis (here) in these terms:
|The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.|
To state as a fact that our universe etc "is so very finely tuned" is a 'pre-assumption' (remember that word, Floyd?) that they were "finely tuned". Or do you have evidence that universes etc tend not to be like ours? Does that lead you believe that the conditions in ours (and not, of course, just in our little corner of it) reflect the intention of someone or something able to "fine-tune" those conditions? Why?
Refuted. Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed. Many many times, btw.
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.
And in each such situation there is a natural explanation that can be traced back by empirical and logical means to the inferred conditions of the universe at its beginning. Why do you infer intention? Where's your evidence?
|3. "argumentum ad ignorantium."|
Hardly. We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make. That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.
Compared to a blind man in a coal shed, certainly. But on an astronomical scale, do we have a better-than-average view of things? Do you have any ideal of the scale of the Universe compared to our solar system, or even our Galaxy?
| Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.|
Why do you assume that the conditions you describe as "fine tuning" are improbable (i.e. unlikely to occur through simple action of natural forces)? What other universes have you been comparing our one to?
|Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:|
|"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path. In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.|
A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements. This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [
The same argument can be used to show that Ursa Major was designed to point to the North Star. Gimme a break.
|No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!|
Once again, compared to which other planets in which other solar systems?
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye 4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.