Raving Atheists Forum - Well, what do you know, the universe isn't fine tuned

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)

- Sciences (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)

- - Well, what do you know, the universe isn't fine tuned (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14802)

Well, what do you know, the universe isn't fine tuned

I stumbled upon an interesting article: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...in_other_skies
It links to this paper: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1475-7516/2008/08/010

From the abstract:

Quote:

...Our main finding is that a sizable fraction of the parameter space (roughly one-fourth) provides the values necessary for stellar objects to operate through sustained nuclear fusion. As a result, the set of parameters necessary to support stars are not particularly rare. In addition, we briefly consider the possibility that unconventional stars (e.g. black holes, dark matter stars) play the role filled by stars in our universe and constrain the allowed parameter space.

So, basically another bit of creationist apologetics is bullshit. News at eleven.

Quote:

Hertzyscowicz wrote (Post 514972)

So, basically another bit of creationist apologetics is bullshit. News at eleven.

What??

“In fact, all universes can support the existence of stars, provided that the definition of star is interpreted broadly,” notes Adams

Similarly, all universes can support ninja bukkake mud wrestling, provided that the definition of such is interpreted broadly...

However, this is not creationist* bollocks, this is theoretical mathematical bollocks. They are very different. Both bollocks, but one is really hard to do while the other is really hard to stomach.

*[If anything it's against creationjism, since he says that stars can exist in many kinds of universes and not just our special god-made heavenly home. Indeed, the end of the article says "” Aguirre says. “This open-minded approach can serve, in some cases, as a counter-argument to claims that our universe is fine-tuned for life.”" Did you even fucking read it?].

"“We simply do not know,” Adams says.""

You got that right.

I think I have been misunderstood. What I meant is, somebody finally did the math on the fine tuning argument and it came out as not fine tuned. Of course, this is theorethical physics and only considered the possibility of stars existing, which I'm sure the creationists will jump at if this paper is cited to them.

You are right, I guess I missed the "is" in your final statement. My apologies.

Don't worry, no offence taken.