Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008

TomG said:
Christian theology is absolutely committed to the fact that God is
creator/designer. It is not committed to the necessity that God left
unmistakable and unambiguous marks of his creative work, where we could
find them in nature.
Comment by TomG "” February 15, 2008

Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Intelligent
entities are known to leave "signatures" in their creations. And I
don't think it would sound far-fetched to the average person that such
a signature might exist in designed genomes.

Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

kernest135:
SETI looks for a simple signal such astransmitted prime numbers to prove intelligent life.
We have highly complex DNA with a computer type program, and ATPase motors and Kinesins (robots) in the simplest cells and all cells. Isnt this a clear signature of the creator? One that no sane person could question.
Regards
kernest135.

Having trouble with this internet PC it locks up.
Will be away in the wopwops for a few days befor I can read the replies.

Mike Gene: ""¦the raw reductionism of someone like Richard Dawkins poses no metaphysical threat. My theology can absorb any of it."

Chunkdz: "What kind of theology can absorb the notion of being inherently delusional?"

Mike Gene: "I don't think Dawkins' reductionist views of evolution entail that a theist would be delusional."

Well, we weren't talking about his views of evolution. Don't you think that Dawkins himself would disagree with your original assertion?

Dawkins: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

The ultimate substrate of Dawkins' reductionism appears to be "blind, pitiless indifference." Is your theology one of a blind, pitiless, indifferent god? If not, I submit that Dawkins' "raw reductionism" is completely at odds with your theology.

Care to get more specific about your theology, now that you've tickled our palates?

I don't think he got it.

If it does not exist in physical reality, then it must exist strictly in "the brain."

But in that case, both the idea, and it's correspondence, exist in "the brain."

So the alleged complexity never materializes, if you'll pardon the pun.

Awesome. Thank you.

What are you doing wasting time on real work?!? You are supposed to be reading Penrose's The Road to Reality so you can argue with me!

Don't I know it. It's just that The Road *in* Reality is jammed up.

Of course neither I nor anyone else presented any such claim. Instead, the claim is that the universe is fine tuned to synthesize heavy elements (heavy meaning anything beylond Lithium) and that any kind of life would require such heavy elements to store information, process energy, have metabolism, etc.

Nobody said nything about human life. You are confusing fine-tuning arguments with privileged planet arguments, a common mistake.

Sorry, its heavy-metals-centric or carbon-based-life-centric instead of human-centric. I'll try not to repeat that error. I'm not sure how that would rescue it from being an invalid probability/likelihood argument, though.

The new element has been named "˜Governmentium'. Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

ROTFLOL!!! What a great laugh for a Monday morning! Man, I think we've got some of this heavy, heavy matter just up the road in my neck of the woods… §;o)

I would disagree with the human-centered point of view that leads people to think the universe is tuned for us, rather than the other way around.

Of course neither I nor anyone else presented any such claim. Instead, the claim is that the universe is fine tuned to synthesize heavy elements (heavy meaning anything beylond Lithium) and that any kind of life would require such heavy elements to store information, process energy, have metabolism, etc.

Nobody said nything about human life. You are confusing fine-tuning arguments with privileged planet arguments, a common mistake.

The original comments were by Todd Berkebile, but I'll address what I can.

I think it is safe to say, that there are no other life forms which are dependent on other values of those constants in this universe. Wouldn't you agree?

Certainly.

Which part do you disagree with?

The reality, the need for explanation, or both?

I would disagree with the human-centered point of view that leads people to think the universe is tuned for us, rather than the other way around.

On this view, nothing at all justifies a need to explain anything at all.

And why are you taking the position that it is only exceptional situations that can justify a need to explain them?

I believe Todd Berkebile was saying that there is no need to go a justification outside of the universe to expain phenomena inside the universe.

You're calling Heddle's response to Todd B. nonsense?

I'm calling the assertion that we have even an inkling of what might or might not be possible in the hydrogen soup of a universe based on different values of the universal constants nonsense, absolutely.

One Brow: What part of that do you think I missed?

All this nonsense from Mr. Evidence?

So, it turns out I didn't miss anything after all, apparently.

one brow, where's the evidence that shows that life could be supported in a universe consisting solely of H and He?

I don't recall claiming that it could be, only that we had no way of knowing.

You only concern yourself with the need for evidence when someone is making a claim contrary to your beliefs.

I do try to be critical of all ideas, even when the nominally support my opinions. If you spend any time on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board, you'll see that for yourself. However, I sometimes fail to meet this goal.

Since we are on this topic, let's have you take a turn: do you think Heddle has more evidence for his claim on the possibilities of life under other conditions than biologists have for their abiogenesis studies?

For my sake? For your sake. One brow, your responses are usually off mark. Your standards are inconsistent.

I have no doubt that's how you see them.

One Brow: I guess that explains why I react to antagonistically to MikeGene.

Not at all.

I shall try to remember to include sarcasm tags in the future for you.

It explains that your claims of being open-minded and interested in the evidence are fraudulent.

What is it you think you have evidence for?

Mung: I don't think he got it.

If it does not exist in physical reality, then it must exist strictly in "the brain."

But in that case, both the idea, and it's correspondence, exist in "the brain."

So the alleged complexity never materializes, if you'll pardon the pun.

And matter and energy is all there is and all there ever was so…