Total Posts:119|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Fine Tuned" is not a good argument

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:05:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For the existence of God or Intelligent Design. I'm just saying, that's assuming you know these things.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:10:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because you couldn't come up with the idea if you didn't exist.
DUH
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0. Your mistake is assuming that existence is necessary just because we exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:28:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:05:54 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
For the existence of God or Intelligent Design. I'm just saying, that's assuming you know these things.

Response: To say that fine tuning or intelligent design is not a valid argument implies that you have observable evidence of non-choice creating a repeating pattern. Yet you do not. Thereby reinforcing the fact that intelligent design is the most logical and valid answer.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0. Your mistake is assuming that existence is necessary just because we exist.

You are only capable of fabricating those odds BECAUSE you exist.
If you didn't then your argument is as bogus as your god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:33:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0.

Notice that believers constantly make up bs numbers out of thin air and can never substantiate them.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:34:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life.

No, they are not, they are the results of the natural laws.

The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

You have no clue what you're talking about and are just making up lies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:36:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:05:54 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
For the existence of God or Intelligent Design. I'm just saying, that's assuming you know these things.

Agreed.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:39:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:28:07 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:05:54 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
For the existence of God or Intelligent Design. I'm just saying, that's assuming you know these things.

Response: To say that fine tuning or intelligent design is not a valid argument implies that you have observable evidence of non-choice creating a repeating pattern. Yet you do not. Thereby reinforcing the fact that intelligent design is the most logical and valid answer.
Non choice creates patterns all the time, you need to look at life.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:40:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wrong yet again. Life exists in conditions that you or I would find hellish at best. From the sub-freezing waters beneath the frozen icecaps to the ultra-heated water at undersea volcanic vents, life exists. It will fill any space wherever basic conditions exist. You have no knowledge of the conditions on the billions, perhaps trillions of planets that are out there so your statement is unfounded. Lose the ego and stop trying to fool yourself into believing that this universe with all of these stars and planets, and so many places were we CANNOT live, was made just for you.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:57:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:40:21 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wrong yet again. Life exists in conditions that you or I would find hellish at best. From the sub-freezing waters beneath the frozen icecaps to the ultra-heated water at undersea volcanic vents, life exists. It will fill any space wherever basic conditions exist. You have no knowledge of the conditions on the billions, perhaps trillions of planets that are out there so your statement is unfounded. Lose the ego and stop trying to fool yourself into believing that this universe with all of these stars and planets, and so many places were we CANNOT live, was made just for you.

You're referring to life-permitting variability within a range of already fine-tuned constants. I can post them here if you're interested. To say that life is not finely-tuned because other conditions may exist is an argument from ignorance. Based on what we DO know, life permitting conditions would have an infinitesimally small chance of occurring.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:58:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wow, you really do ignore what others say and just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. You really do want to remain willfully ignorant.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:02:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:33:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0.

Notice that believers constantly make up bs numbers out of thin air and can never substantiate them.

"By multiplying the maximum number of possible reactions (1063), with the maximum number of atoms (1080),, we can conclude that there are (10143) possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years. Therefore, we can conclude a probability smaller than 1 chance in 10143, will not happen.

When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero."
http://www.universitycad.com...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:34:53 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life.

No, they are not, they are the results of the natural laws.

Circular argument fallacy.

The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

You have no clue what you're talking about and are just making up lies.

See the above post. I'll wait for your rebuttal.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:05:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:57:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:40:21 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wrong yet again. Life exists in conditions that you or I would find hellish at best. From the sub-freezing waters beneath the frozen icecaps to the ultra-heated water at undersea volcanic vents, life exists. It will fill any space wherever basic conditions exist. You have no knowledge of the conditions on the billions, perhaps trillions of planets that are out there so your statement is unfounded. Lose the ego and stop trying to fool yourself into believing that this universe with all of these stars and planets, and so many places were we CANNOT live, was made just for you.

You're referring to life-permitting variability within a range of already fine-tuned constants. I can post them here if you're interested. To say that life is not finely-tuned because other conditions may exist is an argument from ignorance. Based on what we DO know, life permitting conditions would have an infinitesimally small chance of occurring.

Which form of life? The anerobic, non oxygen using life that first arose or the new life that arose when oxygen began to poison that environment? There are creatures that use copper to carry oxygen instead of iron like we do. There are creatures that can metabolize sulfur in quantities that would kill any other creature. You have a very strange idea of fine tuning and believe me, as an Electronic Engineer, I understand that term.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:07:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:58:26 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wow, you really do ignore what others say and just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. You really do want to remain willfully ignorant.

Help me out here Dan point to where I went wrong and maybe we can have a constructive debate instead of an exchange with baseless accusations.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:11:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:05:54 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
For the existence of God or Intelligent Design. I'm just saying, that's assuming you know these things.

No argument will lead a man to the Truth. Only the Truth can reveal itself to whoever it chooses.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:11:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:05:54 AM, AtheistPunk wrote:
For the existence of God or Intelligent Design. I'm just saying, that's assuming you know these things.

I beg to differ. Why not?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:13:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:02:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:33:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0.

Notice that believers constantly make up bs numbers out of thin air and can never substantiate them.

"By multiplying the maximum number of possible reactions (1063), with the maximum number of atoms (1080),, we can conclude that there are (10143) possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years. Therefore, we can conclude a probability smaller than 1 chance in 10143, will not happen.

When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero."
http://www.universitycad.com...

Your link just kills my browser so I cannot see the entire reference.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:15:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:05:53 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:57:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:40:21 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wrong yet again. Life exists in conditions that you or I would find hellish at best. From the sub-freezing waters beneath the frozen icecaps to the ultra-heated water at undersea volcanic vents, life exists. It will fill any space wherever basic conditions exist. You have no knowledge of the conditions on the billions, perhaps trillions of planets that are out there so your statement is unfounded. Lose the ego and stop trying to fool yourself into believing that this universe with all of these stars and planets, and so many places were we CANNOT live, was made just for you.

You're referring to life-permitting variability within a range of already fine-tuned constants. I can post them here if you're interested. To say that life is not finely-tuned because other conditions may exist is an argument from ignorance. Based on what we DO know, life permitting conditions would have an infinitesimally small chance of occurring.

Which form of life? The anerobic, non oxygen using life that first arose or the new life that arose when oxygen began to poison that environment? There are creatures that use copper to carry oxygen instead of iron like we do. There are creatures that can metabolize sulfur in quantities that would kill any other creature. You have a very strange idea of fine tuning and believe me, as an Electronic Engineer, I understand that term.

I'm aware that not all life requires oxygen but all of life does require genetic information, sunlight, nutrients, and water. The possibilities must include factors that allow for all of the essential life-bearing requirements. All evidence indicates that the universe is fine tuned. You'll find this among secular sources as well. The point of contention is whether or not chance can account for it (hence the multiverse theory was born).
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:18:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:02:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:33:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0.

Notice that believers constantly make up bs numbers out of thin air and can never substantiate them.

"By multiplying the maximum number of possible reactions (1063), with the maximum number of atoms (1080),, we can conclude that there are (10143) possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years. Therefore, we can conclude a probability smaller than 1 chance in 10143, will not happen.

When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero."
http://www.universitycad.com...

Sorry, but who is Maury Middleton? She is making stuff up, just like you are. She believes evolution is random chance. She doesn't have a clue.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:20:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:07:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:58:26 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:35:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

It calls into question the means by which we arrived at existence. The more unlikely it was to happen by chance, the less likely it happened by chance. In order to have evolved to fit our environment, first we needed to have life-permitting conditions. Life permitting conditions are finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree.

Wow, you really do ignore what others say and just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. You really do want to remain willfully ignorant.

Help me out here Dan point to where I went wrong and maybe we can have a constructive debate instead of an exchange with baseless accusations.

You're just making up crap, that's the bottom line, dude. There is no constructive debate that can be based around made up crap. Do you understand this?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:23:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:04:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:34:53 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life.

No, they are not, they are the results of the natural laws.

Circular argument fallacy.

Sorry, but Circular Reasoning is when the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. You have yet to provide any proof or evidence for your premises.

The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

You have no clue what you're talking about and are just making up lies.

See the above post. I'll wait for your rebuttal.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:27:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:13:27 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 10:02:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:33:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:13:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our existence was contingent. The odds of our contingent existence happening by chance is effectively 0.

Notice that believers constantly make up bs numbers out of thin air and can never substantiate them.

"By multiplying the maximum number of possible reactions (1063), with the maximum number of atoms (1080),, we can conclude that there are (10143) possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years. Therefore, we can conclude a probability smaller than 1 chance in 10143, will not happen.

When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero."
http://www.universitycad.com...

Your link just kills my browser so I cannot see the entire reference.

Ah, found it. Maureen Middleton has no credentials and quotes data from 1954 to support her hypothesis. Her entire work here is meaningless.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:31:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:31:11 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:20:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:12:41 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why not?

Because there was no fine tuning of the universe. The variables of the laws of nature are simply the results of what happens to mass/energy when it expands and cools.

The variables themselves are fine tuned for life. The odds of these variables falling within the life permitting range are more unlikely than randomly finding a marked atom in our Galaxy.

Life exists. Probability of occurrence in this instance = 100%. It really doesn't matter what the odds of something happening are before it happens. If you drew five straight royal flushes in poker it wouldn't matter that the odds were astronomically against it. The probability in that instance would equal 1 or 100%. The universe and this world wasn't made to fit us, we have evolved to fit it. Much like water takes the shape of its container so have we taken the shape that best fits our environment through millennia of genetic trial and error.

If the container were an olympic size swimming pool, no matter what shape the water took i would be looking for the designer.

Second and even more sensless is you statement about pobability.

What your saying is exactly as if I said I rolled a 6 on some dice. The probability of rolling a 6 is 100%. But clearly that is not what probability is.