What Does DNA Prove?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
gardening doesn't explain how soil is formed.

gardening is just a theory (certainly in my household!)

Originally posted by RJHinds
YES

The Instructor

But does this come as any surprise? No-one has ever said that evolution could explain the origin of life and I see no reason why you would expect us to think it would.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
But does this come as any surprise? No-one has ever said that evolution could explain the origin of life and I see no reason why you would expect us to think it would.

--- Penguin.

God is the only explanation for life.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonship
I think this you have written is SUPREME SPIN. I don't mean it disrespectfully but that is what it sounds like to me - masterful spinning.

I mean truly masterful intellectual somersaults to make evidence argue for the opposite of what it seems to indicate - purposeful calibration.

No, he merely told you what the anthropic principle is as you used it incorrectly. You said:

The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.

Which is totally wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, he merely told you what the anthropic principle is as you used it incorrectly. You said:

The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.

Which is totally wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Which is totally wrong.
According to the citation you provided, the second paragraph literally says nearly exactly what was stated by sonship.
Emphasis added.

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to the citation you provided, the second paragraph literally says nearly exactly what was stated by sonship.
Emphasis added.

Nope, sorry, its not even close.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nope, sorry, its not even close.

Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
To say otherwise simply makes no sense.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
To say otherwise simply makes no sense.

It is obvious that twhitehead is in denial of the truth.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obvious that twhitehead is in denial of the truth.

The Instructor

I would be interested to know what your definition of the word "truth" is, and whether you can describe it without resorting to vague terms such as "God" etc.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
To say otherwise simply makes no sense.

No, it is not 'nearly identical'. The meaning of the two statements is very different. It will take clever word play to make them mean the same thing.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
gardening is just a theory (certainly in my household!)

Okay, that was funny! 🙂 Good one
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Close? It's nearly identical, and requires no torturous spinning of meaning or clever word play.
To say otherwise simply makes no sense.

"The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive."

The universe knew we were going to arrive.


"because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge."

The universe is compelled to have conscious life appear.

Not the same thing.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it is not 'nearly identical'. The meaning of the two statements is very different. It will take clever word play to make them mean the same thing.

Here's how sonship summarized the concept:

The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.

Here's the line from Wiki:

the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge.

Those two are pretty close in meaning, except to the person who simply refuses to see the correlation.

Further, evolutionary biologist A.R. Wallace intoned:

"Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."

This, back in 1904.

I say that sonship has it pretty spot on.
Unplug your ears and listen, will ya?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Further, evolutionary biologist A.R. Wallace intoned:

"Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."

This, back in 1904.

I say that sonship has it pretty spot on.
Unplug your ears and listen, will ya?

So when A.R. Wallace intoned that, was he stating the strong anthropic principle? If not, then its not relevant. If he was, please give a reference to support your claim.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's how sonship summarized the concept:

The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive.

Sonship is claiming that there is a principle which argues that the universe knew we were coming. Not only does the strong version of the anthropic principle claim something much less specific, but it is a claim not an argument.