Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Fine-tuned Universe

Expand Messages
  • stevesommers56
    ... wrote: I assume JimG is Jim Goff. Which forums is he on nowadays? And, btw, I agree with you, except that many of the, so- called,
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 1, 2008
      --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, RAY PERREAULT
      <daganawidah@...> wrote:

      I assume JimG is Jim Goff. Which forums is he on nowadays?

      And, btw, I agree with you, except that many of the, so-
      called, "IDiots" are, literally, mental cases. It seems unlikely
      that they'd be impressed by their own contradictions.

      >
      > \I know this is severly outdated, but it is a perennial topic
      among IDiots which must be addressed head on.
      >
      > \When I was in elementary school, my science teachers emphasized
      our situation as Life As We Know It. It was made clear that as we
      explored the Universe, we would possibly locate Life As We Don't
      Know It. I have noticed that with the advent of Pseudoscientific
      Creationism, LAWKI is the only thing considered possible, evidently
      by Writ of Unholy Fatwa. IDiocy has continued this.
      >
      > \Those confronted with this fine-tuned flapdoodle should push the
      thesis of why LAWKI is the only possible scenario. Force them to
      explain why life in another Universe with other constants is
      categorically impossible, just because it won't be like ours..
      Other constants may make gas/magnetic field creatures, like Vorlons,
      possible. Diferent constants would make life forms we could not
      imagine evolve.
      >
      > \Creo-IDiots have a serious attitude problem. While sparring with
      JimG on three different forums. I have learned the typical
      scenario. They seem to think all they have to do is assert
      something, then sit back while requiring 'evolutinists' to defend
      themselves. When the defense is through, IDiots simply hold their
      nose disdainfully, wave their hand, saying "Fnih, fnih, fnih." The
      proper course is to force them to defend their own selves.
      >
      > \You cannot do this by making statements. I have learned this by
      encountering True Believers of the Wondrous Wonderful Lord Jimmy.
      Making a statement makes their mind shields go up with an audible
      clang. You must ask them questions, with the appearance of making
      them clarify themselves. They love inquiries it shows interest. If
      properly done, you can easily make them destroy their own argument.
      You do this by recapping their answers and handing them the logical
      conclusion based on their own answers. Creo-IDiocy is not built
      from the ground up as science is, it is instead handed down from On
      High, without supporting foundation. Make their lack of foundation
      obvious. It will do huge damage, as their chief slobbering is to
      hallucinate that evolution is without foundation.
      >
      > Ray
      >
      > aaaaafiremanjoe <bgbgbgbg456@...>
      wrote:
      > [hide]
      > Fine-tuned Universe From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      (Redirected from Fine-tuned universe)
      > Jump to: navigation, search
      > The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that conditions that allow
      life in the Universe can only occur with the tightly restricted
      values of the universal physical constants, and that if any of
      several fundamental constants were only slightly different the
      universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and
      development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity,
      or life as it is presently understood. [1]
      > The arguments relating to the fine-tuned universe concept involve
      the anthropic principle, which states that any valid theory of the
      universe must be consistent with our existence as human beings at
      this particular time and place in the universe. In other words, even
      if the actual probability of our universe that supports intelligent
      life may be very low, the conditional probability of supporting
      intelligent life, given our existence in it, is 1. Even if there
      could be other universes, less "fine-tuned" and so devoid of life,
      there would be no one there to observe them.
      > Contents[hide]
      >
      > 1 Premise
      > 2 Nature of the constants
      > 3 Meaning of "universe"
      > 4 Disputes on the existence of fine-tuning
      > 5 Naturalistic possibilities
      > 5.1 Multiverse
      > 5.1.1 Bubble universe theory
      > 5.1.2 Alien design
      >
      >
      > 6 Religious opinions
      > 6.1 Intelligent design
      > 6.2 Other religious creation views
      > 6.3 Counter argument to religious views
      >
      > 7 Bayesian arguments
      > 8 In fiction and popular culture
      > 9 Notes
      > 10 References
      > 11 See also
      > 12 External links
      >
      > [edit] Premise
      > Fine-tuned Universe proponents argue that deep-space structures
      such as the Eta Carinae Nebula would not form in a universe with
      significantly different physical constants. Photo: HST / NASA / ESA.
      >
      >
      > The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small
      change in several of the approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental
      physical constants would make the universe radically different: if,
      for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is
      (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2%
      larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them
      instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the
      physics of stars, and presumably prevent the universe from
      developing life as it is currently observed on the earth. However,
      many of the 26 constants describe the properties of the unstable
      strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which
      seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter.
      It seems unlikely that the precise values of these constants are
      important for life; at any rate they are not included in the usual
      discussion of fine-tuning.
      > Larry Abbott wrote: "the small value of the cosmological constant
      is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected
      relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of
      particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown
      physics."[2] Victor Stenger has suggested that the fine-tuned
      universe concept can be interpreted as a "claim of evidence for
      divine cosmic plan" ": "As the argument goes, the chance that any
      initially random set of constants would correspond to the set of
      values that we find in our universe is very small and the universe
      is exceedingly unlikely to be the result of mindless chance. Rather,
      an intelligent, purposeful Creator must have arranged the constants
      to support life". Stenger in that paper is critical of the claims of
      the fine-tuning advocates and provides his own explanations
      highlighting the flaws in those claims and concludes that "The
      universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to
      the
      > universe".[3]
      > As modern cosmology developed, various hypotheses have been
      proposed. One is an oscillatory universe or a multiverse where
      physical constants are postulated to resolve themselves to random
      values in different iterations of reality. Therefore separate parts
      of reality would have wildly different characteristics. In such
      scenarios the issue of fine-tuning does not arise at all, as only
      those "universes" with constants hospitable to life (such as what we
      observe) would develop life capable of asking the question.
      > There are fine tuning arguments that are naturalistic,[4]
      however, the assertion that the universe was designed to be fine-
      tuned is largely put forward by advocates of intelligent design and
      other forms of creationism. This apparent fine-tuning of the
      universe is cited[5] by William Lane Craig as an evidence for the
      existence of God or some form of intelligence capable of
      manipulating (or designing) the basic physics that governs the
      universe. Craig argues, however, "that the postulate of a divine
      Designer does not settle for us the religious question."
      > Alvin Plantinga argues that random chance, applied to a single
      and sole universe, only raises the question as to why this universe
      could be so "lucky" as to have precise conditions that support life
      at least at some place (the Earth) and time (within millions of
      years of the present).[6]
      > Based upon the Anthropic principle, physicist Robert H. Dicke
      proposed the "Dicke coincidence" argument that the structure (age,
      physical constants, etc) of the universe as seen by living observers
      is not random, but is constrained by biological factors that require
      it to be roughly a "golden age".[7]
      > Critics argue that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the
      anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[8] The fine-tuned
      universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of
      imagination because it assumes no other forms of life, based upon
      alternative biochemistry, are possible. In addition, critics argue
      that humans are adapted to the universe through the process of
      evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to humans. They
      also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or
      anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the
      universe.[9]
      >
      > [edit] Nature of the constants Modern science as practiced since
      René Descartes is reductionist, meaning that it attempts to discover
      the most fundamental objects and rules governing the observable
      behavior of the universe. In descriptions of the physical universe,
      fundamental rules take the form of laws (usually equations relating
      physical quantities and properties) involving physical constants,
      while the fundamental objects are elementary particles with constant
      mass, charge, and other physical properties. This reductionism is a
      pragmatic approach that obtains results and is not a philosophical
      position on ontology. The nature of these constants is a much
      debated topic in physics and metaphysics (see string theory).
      >
      > [edit] Meaning of "universe" Both popular and professional
      research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to
      refer to the observable universe. The reason for this usage is that
      only observable phenomena are scientifically relevant. Since
      unobservable phenomena have no perceptible effects, physicists argue
      that they "causally do not exist". Since unobservable parts of the
      universe cannot be measured, hypotheses about them are not testable,
      and thus inappropriate for a scientific theory.
      > In metaphysics, "universe" refers to everything that exists. This
      encompasses both observable and unobservable phenomena. Metaphysics
      seeks to describe everything that is knowable about existence.
      > All the arguments that refer to the observable universe would not
      necessarily apply to the unobservable parts of reality sometimes
      called "other universes", if such there be. Although our observable
      universe has the parameters necessary for carbon based life, other
      parts of a larger multiverse may be sterile, or may have physical
      parameters conducive to different types of life or other, possibly
      self-aware, systems.
      >
      > [edit] Disputes on the existence of fine-tuning There are many
      cases where the known physical constants are argued to suggest fine
      tuning. However, the validity of these examples is sometimes
      questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective
      anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. For example,
      Victor Stenger writes that "...The fine-tuning argument and other
      recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-
      the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science
      has not fully explained some phenomenon.". Victor Stenger furthers
      his critical view that "...a wide variation of constants of physics
      leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve,
      although human life need not exist in such universes".[3]
      > Fine-tuning, Stenger argues, comes with caveats. The fact that a
      universe with different physical constants might be inhospitable to
      life as we know it does not necessarily mean that it is inhospitable
      to any form of life. Currently, there is no way of determining if a
      universe allows for life or not. Further, most of this universe,
      especially the interstellar vacuum, appears to be devoid of life;
      other physical constants may exist that allow a much greater density
      of life than in this universe.
      > Stenger suggests that there could be exotic life with "different
      configurations of laws and constants of physics" [3]. Life could
      perhaps have developed based on different chemicals. Life could be
      based on silicon or other carbon-like chemical elements, though
      carbon seems better suited.
      > First and foremost, and fatal to the design argument all by
      itself, we have the wholly unwarranted assumption that only one type
      of life is possible—the particular form of carbon-based life we have
      here on earth.
      >
      > —Victor J. Stenger, [4]
      > He has also written:
      > So how did our universe happen to be so "fine-tuned" as to
      produce these wonderful, self-important carbon structures? As I
      explained above, we have no reason to assume that ours is the only
      possible form of life and perhaps life of some sort would have
      happened whatever form the universe took—however the crystals on the
      arm of the snowflake happened to be arranged by chance.
      >
      > —Victor J. Stenger, The Anthropic Coincidences[10]
      >
      > [edit] Naturalistic possibilities If it is accepted that the
      universe is fine-tuned, there are a number of naturalistic
      explanations that attempt to account for it.
      >
      > [edit] Multiverse
      > Main article: Multiverse
      > The Multiverse hypothesis assumes the existence of many universes
      with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to
      intelligent life. See The multiverse and the anthropic principle.
      Because we are intelligent beings, we are by definition in a
      hospitable one. This approach has led to considerable research into
      the anthropic principle and has been of particular interest to
      particle physicists because theories of everything do apparently
      generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants
      vary widely. As of yet, there is no evidence for the existence of a
      multiverse, but some versions of the theory do make predictions
      which some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to
      see some evidence of soon.[11] The existence of additional universes
      in a multiverse, other than the observable universe, is not
      falsifiable, thus some are reluctant to call the multiverse idea
      a "scientific" idea. UNC-Chapel Hill professor Laura Mersini-Houghton
      > claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical
      evidence for a parallel universe.
      > Variants on this approach include the notions of Cosmological
      natural selection, the Ekpyrotic universe, and the Bubble universe
      theory.
      >
      > [edit] Bubble universe theory
      > Main article: Chaotic inflation theory
      >
      > See also: Multiverse#Bubble theory The bubble universe model
      by physicist Andrei Linde, postulates that our universe is one of
      many that grew from a multiverse consisting of vacuum that had not
      yet decayed to its ground state.
      > According to this scenario, by means of a random quantum
      fluctuation the universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum ("nothing") to
      what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no
      matter or radiation but is not quite "nothing." The space inside
      this bubble of false vacuum was curved, or warped. A small amount of
      energy was contained in that curvature, somewhat like the energy
      stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy
      conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for
      sufficiently small time intervals.
      > The bubble then inflated exponentially and the universe grew by
      many orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second. (For a not-
      too-technical discussion, see Stenger 1990). As the bubble expanded,
      its curvature energy was converted into matter and radiation,
      inflation stopped, and the more linear big bang expansion we now
      experience commenced. The universe cooled and its structure
      spontaneously froze out, as formless water vapor freezes into
      snowflakes whose unique patterns arise from a combination of
      symmetry and randomness.
      >
      > —Victor J. Stenger, The Anthropic Coincidences[10]
      > In standard inflation, inflationary expansion occurred while the
      universe was in a false vacuum state, halting when the universe
      decayed to a true vacuum state. The bubble universe model proposes
      that different parts of this inflationary universe (termed a
      Multiverse) decayed at different times, with decaying regions
      corresponding to universes not in causal contact with each other. It
      further supposes that each bubble universe may have different
      physical constants.
      >
      > [edit] Alien design The Universe may have been designed by an
      alien or by aliens. This would solve the problem of how a designer
      or design team capable of fine-tuning the Universe could come to
      exist. Leading cosmologist, Alan Guth believes humans will in time
      be able to generate new universes. By implication previous
      intelligent entities may have generated our universe.
      > I in fact have worked with several other people for some period
      of time on the question of whether or not it's in principle possible
      to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really
      works we don't know for sure. It looks like it probably would work.
      It's actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would
      not displace the universe around it even though it would grow
      tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and
      in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself
      off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed
      universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the
      territory that we currently lay claim to.
      >
      > —Alan Guth[12]
      > This idea leads to the possibility that the extraterrestrial
      designer/designers are themselves the product of an evolutionary
      process in their own universe, which must therefore itself be able
      to sustain life. For instance, Richard Dawkins writes:
      > Or maybe the elusive "crane" that cosmologists seek will be a
      version of Darwin's idea itself: either Smolin's model or something
      similar. Or maybe it will be the Multiverse plus Anthropic principle
      espoused by Martin Rees and others. It may even be a Superhuman
      designer – but if so it will most certainly not be a designer who
      just popped into existence, or who always existed. If (which I don't
      believe for a moment) our universe was designed, and a fortiori if
      the designer reads our thoughts and hands out omniscient advice,
      forgiveness and redemption, the designer himself must be the end
      product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a
      version of Darwinism in another universe.
      >
      > —Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
      > Dawkins maintains that an alien designer or designers are more
      plausible than a supernatural designer or designers because there is
      a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the "crane" of
      Natural selection.
      > The Simulation hypothesis promoted by Nick Bostrom and others
      have suggests that our universe may be a computer simulation by
      aliens.
      > The Biocosm hypothesis and the Meduso-anthropic principle both
      suggest that natural selection has made the universe biophilic. The
      universe enables intelligence because intelligent entities later
      create new biophilic universes. This is different from the
      suggestion above that aliens from a universe which is less finely
      tuned than ours made our universe finely tuned.
      >
      >
      >
      > [edit] Religious opinions Part of a series of articles on
      Intelligent design
      >
      > Concepts Irreducible complexity
      > Specified complexity
      > Fine-tuned universe
      > Intelligent designer
      > Theistic realism
      > Creationism
      >
      > Intelligent design
      > movement Timeline
      > Discovery Institute
      > Center for Science and Culture
      > Wedge strategy
      > Critical Analysis of Evolution
      > Teach the Controversy
      > Intelligent design in politics
      > Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
      > Reactions Jewish · Roman Catholic
      > Scientific organizations
      >
      >
      > Creationism Portal v • d • e As with theistic evolution, some
      individual scientists, theologians, and philosophers as well as
      certain religious groups have seized on the idea that providence or
      creation are responsible for fine-tuning. Intelligent design
      theories are not necessarily falsifiable, and thus some are
      reluctant to call intelligent design theories a "scientific" idea.
      Variants on this approach include:
      >
      > [edit] Intelligent design Proponents of Intelligent Design argue
      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. The fine-tuned universe argument is a central
      premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of
      prominent Intelligent Design proponents, such as William A. Dembski
      and Michael Behe.
      >
      > [edit] Other religious creation views Most religions have some
      kind of account of the creation of the universe, although they
      generally differ in detail from the ones listed above. Some of these
      may be fully compatible with known scientific facts (notwithstanding
      their use of metaphysical ideas which are beyond the domain of
      science). For example scientist-theologians such as John
      Polkinghorne emphasise the implications of Anthropic Fine-Tuning
      within an orthodox Christian framework whilst fully accepting the
      scientific findings about Evolution and the age of the Universe.
      This is also the position of the Roman Catholic Church and of most
      Anglican theologians, of whom Alister McGrath is probably the most
      prolific in this area.[13] The Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder
      argues that the apparent discrepancy between the "days" in Genesis
      and the billions of years in a scientific understanding are due to
      the differences in frames of reference. Many other religious creation
      > views are either incompatible with, or indifferent to, scientific
      understandings. Other scientists with similar views are physicist
      Freeman Dyson and astronomer Owen Gingerich.
      >
      > [edit] Counter argument to religious views The "argument from
      imperfection" suggests that the if the universe were designed to be
      fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that
      evidence suggests that it is not.[14] In fact, most of the universe
      is highly hostile to life.
      > An implication of intelligent design may be that the designer is
      benevolent and, as such, the constants and structures of the
      universe are "life-friendly". However such intelligent designer may
      conceivably be malevolent.
      > (…) it is reasonable to conclude that God does not exist, since
      God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good and thereby would
      not permit any gratuitous natural evil. But since gratuitous natural
      evils are precisely what we would expect if a malevolent spirit
      created the universe (…). If any spirit created the universe, it is
      malevolent, not benevolent.
      >
      > —Quentin Smith, The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the
      Disconfirmation of Theism[15]
      >
      > [edit] Bayesian arguments A Bayesian probabilistic discussion by
      mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys in
      2006 argues that the traditional reasoning about intelligent design
      from the presence of fine-tuning does not properly condition on the
      existence of life and is also based on an incorrect reversal of
      conditional probabilities.[16] They argue that it is an example of
      the prosecutor's fallacy, which in this form erroneously claims that
      if fine-tuning is rare in naturalistic universes, then a fine-tuned
      universe is unlikely to be naturalistic.
      > The philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument
      (2004). Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using
      Bayesian probability (Swinburne 1990).
      >
      > [edit] In fiction and popular culture
      > Stephen Baxter has written several novels and short stories in
      which the setting is an alternative universe with different physical
      laws. The most obvious example is Raft in which the force of gravity
      is a billion times stronger than in our universe. The novel, Time of
      the Manifold sequence includes the interesting concept that the
      universe itself is not perfectly tuned for life to exist and is
      still in the process of evolution itself. The climax of the book
      involves the destruction of the universe so that a new version,
      better suited to life, may replace it.
      >
      > Robert J. Sawyer discusses the fine-tuned universe novel at
      length in his Hugo Award-nominated novel Calculating God (2000),
      which features an alien race that has develop a grand unified theory
      that includes these conclusions (presented in dialog):
      > "First, that this universe is not flat, but rather that it is
      closed: it did indeed start with a big bang and will expand for
      billions of years more -- but it will eventually collapse back down
      to a singularity in a big crunch.
      > "Second, that this current cycle of creation follows no more than
      eight previous big-bang/big-crunch oscillations -- we are not one in
      an infinitely long string of universes but, rather, are one of the
      very few that have ever existed."
      > "And the third provision of the grand unified theory is this: no
      parallel universes exist simultaneously with ours or any of the
      previous or subsequent ones, save virtually identical universes with
      exactly the same physical constants that split briefly from the
      current one then almost immediately reintegrate with it, thus
      accounting for certain quantum phenomenons.
      > "The math to prove all the foregoing is admittedly abstruse,
      although, ironically, the Wreeds intuitively came to an identical
      model. But the theory of everything made numerous predictions that
      have subsequently been confirmed experimentally; it has withstood
      every test it has been put to. And when we found that we could not
      retreat into the notion that this universe is one of a vast number,
      the argument for intelligent design became central to Forhilnor
      thought. Since this is one of a maximum of just nine universes that
      have ever existed, for it to have these highly improbable design
      parameters implies they were indeed chosen by an intelligence."[17]
      >
      > Sawyer also explores the fine-tuned universe argument in his
      short story The Abdication of Pope Mary III, first published in
      Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, July 6, 2000.
      >
      > The Sphere Builders of Star Trek: Enterprise created the
      Delphic Expanse in an attempt to alter the physical laws of our
      universe to match those of their own parallel universe. Their form
      of life was not compatible with the current physical laws of our
      universe (as evidenced by their quickly decaying bodies), and thus
      needed to make said changes in order to conquer and live in our
      universe.
      >
      > Author Neal Stephenson discussed the issue of fine-tuning in
      the conclusion to his essay In The Beginning Was The Command Line,
      speculating on what might happen if an all-powerful entity had
      access to a computer program that could generate universes with any
      desired set of properties.
      > " The demiurge sits at his teletype, pounding out one command
      line after another, specifying the values of fundamental constants
      of physics:
      > universe -G 6.672e-11 -e 1.602e-19 -h 6.626e-34 -protonmass
      1.673e-27.... and when he's finished typing out the command line,
      his right pinky hesitates above the ENTER key for an aeon or two,
      wondering what's going to happen; then down it comes--and the WHACK
      you hear is another Big Bang.[18]
      >
    • RAY PERREAULT
      stevesommers56 wrote: --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, RAY PERREAULT wrote: I
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 12, 2008
        stevesommers56 <stevesommers56@...> wrote:
        --- In DebunkCreation@ yahoogroups. com, RAY PERREAULT
        <daganawidah@ ...> wrote:

        I assume JimG is Jim Goff. Which forums is he on nowadays?

        \None that I know of.  He is a sporadic  one.   It is not his real name.  By his style, I would say he is probably Jonathan Wells, going out into the world to preach the IDiotic gospel.  And absolutely everywhere is the pwecious wecious Discovery Institute to do everybody's thinking.  Through him, I have learned how IDiocy will really transform society.  The Founding Fathers were all good fundies, Catholics and Episcopalians are 'incorrect', we should be grateful to lose our freedoms to protect us from terrorists, and the most ludicrous rewrites of American history ever written.

        \His drool has evolved in perfect synchronization with DI pravda, sometimes slightly anticipating their format changes.  He is much more than just a cheerleader.  Invariably, other listmembers figure out he is pushing an agenda, and he abruptly disappears.  One list he was banned from by throwing a connip.  Seems he couldn't push his ID drivel, but evolutionary discussions were permitted.  ID was not a legitimate scientific theory.

        And, btw, I agree with you, except that many of the, so-
        called, "IDiots" are, literally, mental cases. It seems unlikely
        that they'd be impressed by their own contradictions.

        \There seems to be a good bit of indoctrination involved, at least among the main and leading secondary players.  These are supposed to shepherd the masses.  It goes wrong frequently, as at Dover.


        Ray

        >
        > \I know this is severly outdated, but it is a perennial topic
        among IDiots which must be addressed head on.
        >
        > \When I was in elementary school, my science teachers emphasized
        our situation as Life As We Know It. It was made clear that as we
        explored the Universe, we would possibly locate Life As We Don't
        Know It. I have noticed that with the advent of Pseudoscientific
        Creationism, LAWKI is the only thing considered possible, evidently
        by Writ of Unholy Fatwa. IDiocy has continued this.
        >
        > \Those confronted with this fine-tuned flapdoodle should push the
        thesis of why LAWKI is the only possible scenario. Force them to
        explain why life in another Universe with other constants is
        categorically impossible, just because it won't be like ours..
        Other constants may make gas/magnetic field creatures, like Vorlons,
        possible. Diferent constants would make life forms we could not
        imagine evolve.
        >
        > \Creo-IDiots have a serious attitude problem. While sparring with
        JimG on three different forums. I have learned the typical
        scenario. They seem to think all they have to do is assert
        something, then sit back while requiring 'evolutinists' to defend
        themselves. When the defense is through, IDiots simply hold their
        nose disdainfully, wave their hand, saying "Fnih, fnih, fnih." The
        proper course is to force them to defend their own selves.
        >
        > \You cannot do this by making statements. I have learned this by
        encountering True Believers of the Wondrous Wonderful Lord Jimmy.
        Making a statement makes their mind shields go up with an audible
        clang. You must ask them questions, with the appearance of making
        them clarify themselves. They love inquiries it shows interest. If
        properly done, you can easily make them destroy their own argument.
        You do this by recapping their answers and handing them the logical
        conclusion based on their own answers. Creo-IDiocy is not built
        from the ground up as science is, it is instead handed down from On
        High, without supporting foundation. Make their lack of foundation
        obvious. It will do huge damage, as their chief slobbering is to
        hallucinate that evolution is without foundation.
        >
        > Ray
        >
          
        .


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.