pig

I wrote a bunch of meandering crap a second ago and erased it. It boils down to the the opinion that I'm unconvinced we would ever know if the gravitational constant was a little different than it is now. We made up the theory of gravity, and we fit the constant. It seems to work pretty well. The same can be said for all the other constants and theories and laws. We extrapolated those laws from the world around us. I don't think we can use a mathematical model, which is based on constants which are extrapolated from the world, as we know it...then change some numbers around, and pretend that we're surprised that there is an inconsistency. I think all that these "fine tuning" go to show that the reality we experience is a much more interrelated holarchial structure than we commonly think of it to be. I'm not trying to single you out or attack you, or really even argue/debate with youasaris - no Christian bashing here, etc - I just enjoy the way you post about these topics in general.

nanotech,

I am glad that you have the beliefs yo have, and that you find evidence for your beliefs in the arguments you have posted. While I agree with some of the underlying ideas in your posts, namely that a purely scientific statistical argument is currently incapable of of explaining evolutionary development, and furthermore that the question of "why did the universe happen?" is strictly outside the realm of classical scientific inquiry, I have to say that I find much of your logic to be circular or incomplete. I don't have the time to go through all the posts, but I would like to mention that many people I know who are more familiar with evolutionary concepts that I, would say that you are cherrypicking your arguments. Take the dog vs. giraffe.

1. You state that the giraffe's neck is explainable through natural selection.

2. You state that a dog turning into a dolphin is not possible.

You have no proof for this claim. A dog turning into a dolphin in one big jump is very unlikely. A dog slowly undergoing mutations, such as webbed feet, smaller hing legs, loss of hair, etc, is not entirely probable, in one big leap...but evolution is not about big leaps.

I think you are correct in saying that the dog "wanting" the fins is unlikely to produce them. I notice you don't seem to think that the giraffe sat around wishing for a longer neck, but that it happened through natural selection.

I think, and I could be wrong, but if dogs always had to swim across a river to get their food, or were constantly in wet areas when hunting, that dogs that had webbed feet, or could otherwise swim better, would be favored. See Labarador Retreivers. If those dogs did develop any anomoly that allowed them to better adapt to their environment better, that would also be favored. Over a very, very very long time.

3. The 1400 years stuff. People have been making predictions about the future for a long time. Sometimes we can find ways to make them seem true. Sometimes it really is amazing the types of visions that people seem to have had about the future. I think that arguing for "God created the universe" because you find meaning in a prophesy is going to be difficult, within the context of a scientific discussion.

4. Let's not forget that this thread started off with a "proof that God created the universe." Evolution is in no way counter to that notion. One is a question, primarily, of why the universe was created, the other is a question of how did it unfold.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style