Science 'versus' God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Carbon

What about that the production of carbon may need a nuclear energy level of 7.65 million electron-volts to form? Well, this actually hinges on the radioactive state of a carbon nucleus formed out of three helium nuclei, which has over a 20% range to work with without being too high. Stephen Weinberg has noted that this “is not such a close call after all”.

In short, no fine-tuning is necessary for the production of carbon, oxygen and the other basic elements of life. They are in fact the elements that are among the easiest to form by common nuclear reactions.

Also, complex, carbon-based molecules that occur in living matter can be readily produced by chemical reactions involving simpler substances. This is just another example of how simplicity can beget complexity, contrary to the claims of creationists.

[Mikal]

Dr. Dennis Scania, head of Cambridge University Observatories, said in a BBC science documentary, The Anthropic Principle:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: observed:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University, said:
The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly.

When the late Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be created in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.
Hoyle summed up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.

Dr. David D. Deutch remarked:
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.

The August '97 issue of "Science" featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" in which it stated:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life - such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long- lived stars - also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Sir Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) stated: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).
"For example," Hawking wrote,
if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Hawking said this was evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)


Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

if we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction,

I covered this already in ‘fine-tuning’.


would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly.

This, too. Same thing.


in order to produce the necessary carbon.

A repeat that was answered yesterday.


speculate that some divine influence may be present.

They couldn’t be up on the more recent findings in 1997, so they speculated wrong.


Hawking said this was evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)

Hawking changed his mind, as I reported, based on new information.


any form of intelligent life

Life needn’t have been based on carbon, say, if there was none, but since it is, we will always look back to see that carbon played a role.


In general, about speculating, since faith is belief in the absence of evidence it should not be used to make any judgments about the world or personal life.


It is also that what is eternal must be causeless and so cannot have been defined, for there was no point at which to do it. So, an eternal causeless God, even more so, according to Leskey’s design principles, and mine, would have to have a DESIGNER for its perfect order. Thus, the eternal causeless unordered quantum state detected over and over in the realm of no design and, in fact, being absolutely totally random and undetermined.

Sometimes the mind so much wants to do it function (to know all), that it speculates its way to 'truth', not realizing that mere pronouncement just floats in the thin air as an unsupported belief.

[michael turner]

Even random actions have limit which allow for action, any action at all has defined principles that allow action. Any action therefore, no matter how big, small have by definition guidance principles. It is the nature of principles that physics and theology come together as one.
- Michael Turner

[austintorn@aol.com]

have by definition guidance principles


One would think so from observing the classical realm. Bohm attempted to speculate a guide wave and a pilot wave before there were shown to be no hidden variables.

It's just that there's nothing beneath the causeless to guide it. But can't have causes beneath causes forever. This makes the unintuitive quantum realm somewhat more intuitive.

[michael turner]

Austin, you misunderstand my point, that fact that a specific action exists eliminates the possibility of that specific action not happening, the fact that we exist eliminates the possibility of us not existing. Therefore even if all is initially random, once in motion pure random possibilities are restricted because of the motion. This is a logical and observed fact, which results in the laws of physics, etc. How randomness can limit itself to create action with governing rules requires a leap of faith in nothing. I do not profess to have that amount of faith in nothing. I congratulate you on your faith in nothing. I will stick to my faith in what you are, something else.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The near 'nothing' of the random quantum uncertainty of a fluctuation is still a something, not a true Nothing. And, yes, the order of particles and cause came thereafter and, so, here we are on one of the arbitrary paths of everything (that was superimposed).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Science Saves Us From the Hot Future

The White Cliffs Underground Motel and the residences have the right idea—free cooling to 67 degrees F: perfect! This may be a good plan for all if the future if global warming really happens to happen. No need to even cover the wall or the ceiling.

I can imagine a stay in the Dug-Out Motel, it being quite a heavenly destination after traveling forever over bumpy roads and then getting out of the ‘cement mixer’ mode and into the pool, as all this traveling would grant more appreciation of the three star AAA Motel. Perhaps a lovely ToeQuest lady would like to come along? Any volunteers?

Our room would have natural light from a shaft, which saves on electricity. There are no windows, but that only saves us from having to view the non-scenery of Mars. Cell phones wouldn't work, but, hey, that’s great—no interruptions of any pending eruptions. Hey, how come people in soap operas always answer their darn phone? It always kills the moment.

In the rocky tunnels and underground we could meet up with those who are secretly plotting to take over the world, as in James Bond movies. Plus, we could always dine in the restaurant, since the nearest supermarket is a rough six-mile drive away. And the dust-assisted sunsets are truly unbeatable, they having ten times as more colors than the rainbow. Plus, with White Cliffs having electricity now, the beer is no longer a steamy hot 110 degrees F, but ice-cold.

There was a really bad drought in the 1890’s and the land has never really recovered, but who needs that when one has love and cold beer.

[Mikal]

Even random actions have limit which allow for action, any action at all has defined principles that allow action. Any action therefore, no matter how big, small have by defination guidance principles. It is the nature of principles that physics and theology come together as one.
- Michael Turner

Does Nature follow defined principles?? If I hold a seed in my hand it will just remain a seed. I could hold it there forever, and it will never take the action of becoming the design in the seed...forever, and ever it will take no action without the principles of earth to root in, earth to nourish it to have enough effort to push its way through the earth to reach for the sunlight, the rain, the bee to pollinate it...the observer to admire it and breathe in its fragrance...
I would see it has to follow guiding principles to go beyond being a mere seed....


Mikal

[Mikal]

Science Saves Us From the Hot Future

The White Cliffs Underground Motel and the residences have the right idea—free cooling to 67 degrees F: perfect! This may be a good plan for all if the future if global warming really happens to happen. No need to even cover the wall or the ceiling.

I can imagine a stay in the Dug-Out Motel, it being quite a heavenly destination after traveling forever over bumpy roads and then getting out of the ‘cement mixer’ mode and into the pool, as all this traveling would grant more appreciation of the three star AAA Motel. Perhaps a lovely ToeQuest lady would like to come along? Any volunteers?

Our room would have natural light from a shaft, which saves on electricity. There are no windows, but that only saves us from having to view the non-scenery of Mars. Cell phones wouldn't work, but, hey, that’s great—no interruptions of any pending eruptions. Hey, how come people in soap operas always answer their darn phone? It always kills the moment.

In the rocky tunnels and underground we could meet up with those who are secretly plotting to take over the world, as in James Bond movies. Plus, we could always dine in the restaurant, since the nearest supermarket is a rough six-mile drive away. And the dust-assisted sunsets are truly unbeatable, they having ten times as more colors than the rainbow. Plus, with White Cliffs having electricity now, the beer is no longer a steamy hot 110 degrees F, but ice-cold.

There was a really bad drought in the 1890’s and the land has never really recovered, but who needs that when one has love and cold beer.

Oh I love going out on the limb of a new journey...I would surely take, give and share the love and the magic of the moments but I would stick with my coke on the rocks as beer is just not my thing....lol

Mikal...........bringing Agent Peepers too...(*) (*)