God Tube
- Started
- Last post
- 248 Responses
- flagellum0
I disagree completely, mimio. This is not a "gap" argument it is a logical inference based on the data and familiar patterns - codes require coders, machinery requires engineers, information always proceeds from teleos(mind).
The anthropic principle is the "happy coincidences" which make our place in the universe ideal for biology and discovery. I'm quite familiar with it as it's an excellent example of the design inference.
Athropic “coincidences” like if metals could not have been smelted and refined at temperatures reachable through carbon-based fire, technology could never have arisen. What a happy coincidence. One can’t make cars and computers from wood and stone. Or how mathematical formulas so perfectly reflect natural laws and constants. Oh and so many more.
- -sputnik-0
this is not meant sarcastically, but a serious question for flagellum:
when you see these types of threads, do you feel compelled to respond and offer your point of view because of your religion? do you think it's because it's part of being a good christian, to explain or defend a point of view?
- Mimio0
You misunderstand of the anthropic principle really underlines your general disengenuous perspective. What it means is we(as lifeforms) are the byproduct of the those universal constants. For all we know things thrive in other universes under completely different conditions. It doesn't imply any intelligent causation. Again , that's a reflection of your beliefs on scientific principles. It's very much an example of you making a gap argument.
- Mimio0
Your misunderstanding^
...I see I'm not helping it much.
- lemmys_wart0
when you see these types of threads, do you feel compelled to respond and offer your point of view because of your religion? do you think it's because it's part of being a good christian, to explain or defend a point of view?
-sputnik-
(Mar 23 07, 11:38)i suspect he has the same motivation as (almost) all of us...
wasting our employers time/money.
- incog0
Aww, and I thought we'd reached such a nice and cheery conclusion to this thread.
Hey Mr. Dobs, I get that you don't like Flagellum, but is it really necessary to insult Christianity in the process of insulting him?
And from what I've read, Anthropic Theory is often used to introduce the existence of God into scientific theory. I could be missing something, but I think it supports Flagellum more than Mimio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant…That's all I've got. Have a great weekend, all.
- mrdobolina0
how many times have I said that I have no problems with christianity or any other religion for that matter?
It's the creeps that use it for things that I don't like?
- Brookoioioi0
I hate posting in these topics, try to avoid being anything but an NT lurker but feel compelled when i see outrageous assertions posted as informed opinion.
1. The anthropic principle does not support the god hypothesis. It is an alternative
2. The massive and overwhelming evidence supports Gradualism, more specifically what is known as the modern synthesis of Darwinism, this is excepted by almost all scientists and most informed religious people.
But always do your own research and challenge anyone saying otherwise to present theirs.