Comments on: Fine-tuning http://www.speedkill.org/2006/02/28/1358/ Radioactive Toy Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:33:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: touchstone http://www.speedkill.org/2006/02/28/1358/#comment-300298 touchstone Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:53:57 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/1358/#comment-300298 I'm with Heliologue. The basic problem of the "universe-is-too-complex-for-chance" crowd is a failure to grasp the size and age of the universe. I’m with Heliologue.

The basic problem of the “universe-is-too-complex-for-chance” crowd is a failure to grasp the size and age of the universe.

]]> By: Heliologue http://www.speedkill.org/2006/02/28/1358/#comment-300271 Heliologue Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:04:57 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/1358/#comment-300271 ! It's K2! But in your old style! Bitchin'! Anyway, I've always found the fine-tuning argument to be as specious as most others. "What are the odds that the conditions on earth would be just right to create humans?" Of course humans are a product of a certain set of conditions: were the evolution of the earth any different, there'd be a physiologically different set of creatures asking "What are the odds that the conditions on earth would create <em>us</em>?" It's creationist arrogance to predicate conditions upon humans and not vice versa. ! It’s K2! But in your old style! Bitchin’!

Anyway, I’ve always found the fine-tuning argument to be as specious as most others. “What are the odds that the conditions on earth would be just right to create humans?” Of course humans are a product of a certain set of conditions: were the evolution of the earth any different, there’d be a physiologically different set of creatures asking “What are the odds that the conditions on earth would create us?”

It’s creationist arrogance to predicate conditions upon humans and not vice versa.

]]>