Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[99percentatheism]

You are absolutely wrong. If there was or is no Intelligence designing or guiding this natural selection then it is indeed RANDOM. It is indeed chance. It is indeed blind-luck. So which is it? Oh wait a minute I get it...these molecules just decided one day to get together in just the precise manner in order to become a simple living cell....is that it?

You are incorrect again because you keep arguing about that which you don't understand. It's not that simple. From Berkeley...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation,

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... faq.php#a2

Your quote admits that randomness and chance do play apart in evolution and the history of life. You can't have your cake and eat it to. We were either created by a higher power or intelligence OR we got here by dumb blind-luck. Which is it?

Maybe it's reading comprehension, I don't know, but I'm fairly certain it explained precisely and concisely what is random and what is not. I'm sorry you were unable to glean any useful information from it. You are arguing that either all variables in abiogenesis and evolution are random, or, god did it. That is a false dichotomy. I'd try to help you more if you actually displayed an interest in learning, but I interpret your posts as being belligerent.

Belligerence is a mental and physical property possessed by many of those that refuse to postulate a creator as well. Their facts are their worldviews and that's it. No need for all the complex (or simple) queries to why we are here. It's over. It's settled. Evolution proves what we are and how. And yet leaves as many questions as to that why and how as when we were oooze babies somehow knowing what way to crawl.

I was once a member of a clique of people that were as anti-God as a room full of Dawkins' clones and couldn't bring themselves to ever see a universe of meaning. And, that is the bottomline of this unending opposition between Theists and atheists. To demand that the Universe is not giving us proof/evidence of "a" God is just as embracing of ignorance as those that believe throwing a child into the belly of Chemosh will bring rain, or that a human fetus vacuumed out of a 21st century uterus before birth can occur, is not a human being.

Faith comes in many forms. Some with a materialist's PhD and some with commonsense of a caring heart guiding it.

Constants of Nature
The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.4 Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe. In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:

(Read Karl Giberson's Science and the Sacred entry The Road Less Traveled for more on the fine-tuning of the physical constants)

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5

Hoyle did not mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer. The scientific explanation of carbon’s development was readily accessible, although this explanation offers no insight into why the fundamental forces cooperated to produce the unusual energy match up. Hoyle’s remark should be understood as an acknowledgement of how startling it is that the universe has the exact properties that enable the existence of life.

Consider also the strength of gravity. When the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms floating about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded outwards from the Big Bang, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right force—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The Big Bang—and our prospects—would have ended quickly in a Big Crunch. And if gravity was a bit weaker, the expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely that they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. The strength of gravity has to be exactly for stars to form. But what do we mean by “exactly�? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies, or planets. And without planets, there would be no life. The other constants of nature possess this same feature. Change any of them, and the universe, like Robert Frost’s traveler, moves along a very different path. And remarkably, every one of these different paths leads to a universe without life in it. Our universe is friendly to life, but only because the past fifteen billion years have unfolded in a particular way that led to a habitable planet with liquid water and rich chemistry.

There are many other finely-tuned constants of nature besides the strengths of these forces. Consider the ratio of masses for protons and electrons, as a final example. The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron.6 Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life.7 But with regard to the development of life on Earth, it is sometimes claimed that natural selection would find a way for life to develop no matter what the circumstances. In this way, nature is sometimes said to tune itself. However, the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature’s ability to tune itself to any degree. As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out:

"[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself." 8

Initial Conditions
Fine-tuning is also evident in the "initial conditions" or the beginning state of the universe. The initial conditions of the universe include such information as the expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe’s expansion and even the degree of its entropy.

Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

Responses to Fine-Tuning
Needless to say, the preceding examples carry significant implications for understanding the universe. With some thought, it seems that out of an unfathomable number of possibilities, our universe is one of very few which is capable of hosting life. Consequently, many of these observations have been used as pointers to God.

Fine-Tuning vs. Irreducible Complexity
Before continuing the discussion, it is important to distinguish these pointers to God from the biological arguments of irreducible complexity, which have a similar form. Fine-tuning provides examples of how nature is able to produce the current complexity of life, and when one reflects upon the unlikelihood of these examples, it may have the potential to point to a creator. In the case of irreducible complexity, however, the argument is advanced to suggest that nature cannot account for our present state of existence without relying upon direct, miraculous, divine intervention somewhere in the process.10 While an argument of irreducible complexity would be shattered by a scientific explanation, these pointers to God are much less vulnerable to dismissal on the basis of future scientific explanations. However, pointers to God also draw attention to the splendid precision of nature’s laws towards the evolution of life.

A Lucky Accident
Not surprisingly, fine-tuning arguments unsettle those who embrace the philosophy of naturalism, since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. Some of the naturalist responses are common and are worth mentioning here. The first amounts to a nonchalant shrugging of the shoulders. Many adherents to philosophical naturalism give a response along the following lines: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.11 Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!� A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity, whereas this kind of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution.

An Inevitability
From a more scientific standpoint, it is often claimed that the theory of inflation gives an adequate explanation for such precision and balance. The theory of inflation states that in the early stages of cosmological evolution, the universe underwent a period of exponential expansion. By proposing the right kinds of inflationary models, it is possible to show that some of the examples above — most importantly the critical density of the universe — would naturally take on the appropriate values. In this way, some of the universe’s fine-tuning seems to be explained away. Whether inflation occurs is a subject of debate. However, most theoretical physicists agree that some form of inflation took place, and more importantly this phenomenon could indeed explain many examples of fine-tuning. But what is not always included in the description of these inflation theories, is the extra fine-tuning the theories themselves require. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion — and to result in the necessary values for our universe’s critical density — inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. So precise are these values that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only pushed one step back. A second naturalist response is to suppose that the finely-tuned features of our world will someday show themselves to have been inevitable. That is, with an increase in our understanding of physics, it is possible that one day we will discover a Theory of Everything through which all other facts of physics could be explained. Such a theory might even explain why the universal constants and physical laws have to have such specific values. However, each of the finely-tuned features of our world put certain restrictions on the possibilities for the possible Theory of Everything. In the end, only a few specific theories would suffice, and this essentially results in a fine-tuning problem even for Theories of Everything.12

- http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Post3082--All the mumbo jumbo you write about interdimensionality and "Godlike" seem a stretch in an already speculative topic. After all, I don't think you can even define interdimensionality. But it's entirely possible that if alien civilizations exist, they may be a few millennia ahead of us in some aspects of technological development, and thus would look as awe inspiring (and "magical" to the gullible among us) as we would certainly look to the bronze age barbarians who wrote the Bible.

For once I agree with you. Your thread is that long that mutation is starting to take place and cave dwelling ignorants are starting to mutate to bronze age barbarians towards a tangential highly likely approximate to coherency. Don't try to hang this Ghostbusters script on me, I'm just the janitor.


"You sure ask a lot of questions for a janitor!" Roger Jr. Tekken 5

[McCulloch]

As a distinguished scholar who's name escapes me once said, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

While Arthur C. Clarke may have been distinguished, he is more properly described as being a science fiction writer, science writer, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host but not essentially a scholar.

[dianaiad]

God is another dimension.

Meaningless statement. No more and no less meaningful than "Batman operates on a different level".

abiogenesis in outer space produces aliens

I don't think there's any valid reason to speculate that life can exist in outer space. The speculation is that life can exist on other earth like planets.

dianaiad knew it before we did

Ridiculous non sequitur. I'm assuming you're referring to the mormon belief that when you die you get to become the ruler of a separate planet.

(raising hand) er, we don't believe that. We've never believed that. We have often been accused of believing that, but we don't believe that. Sorry. We do believe that we can become like God, and He isn't in charge of one measly planet, is He? At least, not in the belief system under discussion, He isn't.

Not that it matters in the context of the point you are attempting to make, here, mind you; I'm just correcting a mistaken impression of Mormon doctrine.

Sorry Diana I freely admit that I am not as familiar with the Book of Mormon as I should be. I will get round to reading it in full some day. Are beliefs on cosmology spelled out in it, or is there separate literature I should look at?

The Book of Mormon is not the end all and be all of Mormon Doctrine. True, we do believe that it is scripture, but we also believe that the bible, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants is scripture. Your best bet, if you want to know what out doctrines actually are, is to go to LDS.org. You can get a quick rundown on our beliefs there, and can continue to put off reading the Book of Mormon.

[Peter]

.

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

Everybody feast your eyes on the mother of all logical fallacies: the category error. Savor this moment because such succinctly put essence of complete nonsense is very hard to find.

This is what you're saying:

1) A land mammal once turned into a whale
2) A fox is a land mammal
3) Therefore a fox can turn into a whale

This reasoning was not intended for those who do not understand evolution, but rather for those like Peter who do understand evolution.

There is absolutely no reason why the modern Fox cannot evolve into a whale like animal given the right selective pressure and enough time. They're both mammals so most of the evolving is already done. We'd just need to work on the form. I don't know, maybe 6 million generations? Definitely a long term project!

To include the assumed premises, so that even those readers who have never studied evolution can understand the argument, we have the following...

1) Any land animal can evolve into any other land animal
2) A fox is a land animal
3) A fox can evolve into any other land animal
4) Some land animal did evolve into a whale
5) A fox can evolve into the land animal that did evolve into a whale
6) Therefore a fox can evolve into a whale

No, the modern fox cannot evolve into the land animal that evolved into the whale. That ship has sailed. Read exactly what I said.

[olavisjo]

.

1, 3, 5, and 6 are incorrect. Your score is only 33.33%, an F.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding evolution.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding of formal logic.

Thank you for your opinion. Would it be too much to ask for you to share some of your reasoning for such a low grade?

You may start with the first premise. What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

[Danmark]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

[Danmark]

.

1, 3, 5, and 6 are incorrect. Your score is only 33.33%, an F.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding evolution.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding of formal logic.

Thank you for your opinion. Would it be too much to ask for you to share some of your reasoning for such a low grade?

You may start with the first premise. What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

Some how you have found a way to lower your score even further. I believe Star does NOT object to 'macroevolution.' YOU do.

[Sir Hamilton]

You are absolutely wrong. If there was or is no Intelligence designing or guiding this natural selection then it is indeed RANDOM. It is indeed chance. It is indeed blind-luck. So which is it? Oh wait a minute I get it...these molecules just decided one day to get together in just the precise manner in order to become a simple living cell....is that it?

You are incorrect again because you keep arguing about that which you don't understand. It's not that simple. From Berkeley...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation,

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... faq.php#a2

Your quote admits that randomness and chance do play apart in evolution and the history of life. You can't have your cake and eat it to. We were either created by a higher power or intelligence OR we got here by dumb blind-luck. Which is it?

Maybe it's reading comprehension, I don't know, but I'm fairly certain it explained precisely and concisely what is random and what is not. I'm sorry you were unable to glean any useful information from it. You are arguing that either all variables in abiogenesis and evolution are random, or, god did it. That is a false dichotomy. I'd try to help you more if you actually displayed an interest in learning, but I interpret your posts as being belligerent.

Belligerence is a mental and physical property possessed by many of those that refuse to postulate a creator as well. Their facts are their worldviews and that's it. No need for all the complex (or simple) queries to why we are here. It's over. It's settled. Evolution proves what we are and how. And yet leaves as many questions as to that why and how as when we were oooze babies somehow knowing what way to crawl.

I was once a member of a clique of people that were as anti-God as a room full of Dawkins' clones and couldn't bring themselves to ever see a universe of meaning. And, that is the bottomline of this unending opposition between Theists and atheists. To demand that the Universe is not giving us proof/evidence of "a" God is just as embracing of ignorance as those that believe throwing a child into the belly of Chemosh will bring rain, or that a human fetus vacuumed out of a 21st century uterus before birth can occur, is not a human being.

Faith comes in many forms. Some with a materialist's PhD and some with commonsense of a caring heart guiding it.

Constants of Nature
The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.4 Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe. In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:

(Read Karl Giberson's Science and the Sacred entry The Road Less Traveled for more on the fine-tuning of the physical constants)

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5

Hoyle did not mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer. The scientific explanation of carbon’s development was readily accessible, although this explanation offers no insight into why the fundamental forces cooperated to produce the unusual energy match up. Hoyle’s remark should be understood as an acknowledgement of how startling it is that the universe has the exact properties that enable the existence of life.

Consider also the strength of gravity. When the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms floating about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded outwards from the Big Bang, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right force—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The Big Bang—and our prospects—would have ended quickly in a Big Crunch. And if gravity was a bit weaker, the expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely that they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. The strength of gravity has to be exactly for stars to form. But what do we mean by “exactly�? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies, or planets. And without planets, there would be no life. The other constants of nature possess this same feature. Change any of them, and the universe, like Robert Frost’s traveler, moves along a very different path. And remarkably, every one of these different paths leads to a universe without life in it. Our universe is friendly to life, but only because the past fifteen billion years have unfolded in a particular way that led to a habitable planet with liquid water and rich chemistry.

There are many other finely-tuned constants of nature besides the strengths of these forces. Consider the ratio of masses for protons and electrons, as a final example. The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron.6 Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life.7 But with regard to the development of life on Earth, it is sometimes claimed that natural selection would find a way for life to develop no matter what the circumstances. In this way, nature is sometimes said to tune itself. However, the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature’s ability to tune itself to any degree. As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out:

"[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself." 8

Initial Conditions
Fine-tuning is also evident in the "initial conditions" or the beginning state of the universe. The initial conditions of the universe include such information as the expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe’s expansion and even the degree of its entropy.

Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

Responses to Fine-Tuning
Needless to say, the preceding examples carry significant implications for understanding the universe. With some thought, it seems that out of an unfathomable number of possibilities, our universe is one of very few which is capable of hosting life. Consequently, many of these observations have been used as pointers to God.

Fine-Tuning vs. Irreducible Complexity
Before continuing the discussion, it is important to distinguish these pointers to God from the biological arguments of irreducible complexity, which have a similar form. Fine-tuning provides examples of how nature is able to produce the current complexity of life, and when one reflects upon the unlikelihood of these examples, it may have the potential to point to a creator. In the case of irreducible complexity, however, the argument is advanced to suggest that nature cannot account for our present state of existence without relying upon direct, miraculous, divine intervention somewhere in the process.10 While an argument of irreducible complexity would be shattered by a scientific explanation, these pointers to God are much less vulnerable to dismissal on the basis of future scientific explanations. However, pointers to God also draw attention to the splendid precision of nature’s laws towards the evolution of life.

A Lucky Accident
Not surprisingly, fine-tuning arguments unsettle those who embrace the philosophy of naturalism, since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. Some of the naturalist responses are common and are worth mentioning here. The first amounts to a nonchalant shrugging of the shoulders. Many adherents to philosophical naturalism give a response along the following lines: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.11 Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!� A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity, whereas this kind of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution.

An Inevitability
From a more scientific standpoint, it is often claimed that the theory of inflation gives an adequate explanation for such precision and balance. The theory of inflation states that in the early stages of cosmological evolution, the universe underwent a period of exponential expansion. By proposing the right kinds of inflationary models, it is possible to show that some of the examples above — most importantly the critical density of the universe — would naturally take on the appropriate values. In this way, some of the universe’s fine-tuning seems to be explained away. Whether inflation occurs is a subject of debate. However, most theoretical physicists agree that some form of inflation took place, and more importantly this phenomenon could indeed explain many examples of fine-tuning. But what is not always included in the description of these inflation theories, is the extra fine-tuning the theories themselves require. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion — and to result in the necessary values for our universe’s critical density — inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. So precise are these values that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only pushed one step back. A second naturalist response is to suppose that the finely-tuned features of our world will someday show themselves to have been inevitable. That is, with an increase in our understanding of physics, it is possible that one day we will discover a Theory of Everything through which all other facts of physics could be explained. Such a theory might even explain why the universal constants and physical laws have to have such specific values. However, each of the finely-tuned features of our world put certain restrictions on the possibilities for the possible Theory of Everything. In the end, only a few specific theories would suffice, and this essentially results in a fine-tuning problem even for Theories of Everything.12

- http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

Excellent post...I couldn't have said better myself. Unfortunately it will just go right over their heads. It seems they are mentally stuck on only the "science" that teaches the things that scratches their itchy ears. Any science that supports creationism or intelligent design is automatically ignored. What they don't understand or just can't admit is that they don't really know....they just believe what some professor has told them or what they have read in a book or on the internet.

[Sir Hamilton]

[replying to McColluch's casino analogy]
Ahh....so evolution is equivalent to the 'house' in the gambling casino. You are aware that the 'house' always wins aren't you? Because it was designed that way by intelligence. I wonder what intelligence and design is behind evolution?

There is no contradiction between belief in god and belief in evolution. Evolution merely presents a method by which an 'intelligent designer' is not necessary. There is no reason to suggest evolution 'proves there is no god.'

That being said, I don't think the casino analogy is perfect, at least say, with roulette. Chemicals interact with each other according to their properties. The interaction is not simply random. To return to the casino analogy, it is apt when talking about craps. When dice are rolled, the odds are quite different when rolling two die, each with dots from one to six, then if one rolled a single die, a dodecahedron, with numbers from 1 to 12. In the latter case the odds for rolling any particular number from 1 to 12 are equal. But with two die the odds of rolling a '7' are much higher than for rolling a '2' or a '12' since there are 6 ways to roll a '7' and only 1 way to roll a '2' and only 1 way to roll a '12.' The closer the number is to '7', the more likely you are to roll it. In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

To claim evolution is mere 'blind chance' or purely random is like not understanding the difference between the dodecahedral die and rolling two standard dice.

So what are you trying to say? You believe that God is the intelligence behind the evolutionary process? Rolling a dice is still chance whether it is a dodecahedral dice or two standard dice. You just can't admit it can you?

No. .the 'filter' involved in evolution, which removes the 'randomness' , has nothing to do with 'intelligence'.

That is just a straw man you are using.

I am not sure that trying to deny intelligent design while at the same time deny randomness and chance has anything to do with 'intelligence' either.