Haven't defined evidence??? I defined it in my first post!
"Evidence is anything material that can be observed or tested under scientific conditions."
It's you who keeps insisting that all our definitions are wrong or don't cover everything. I've defined evidence over and over and you keep going back and back to it for no apparent reason.
Even if the Bible does state that "days of God are not the days of man", the genesis story is till very very wrong. The Earth wasn't created before light, the moon is not a light source, birds did not emerge at the same time as fish, and certainly not before land animals emerged, and the entire human race does not go back to 2 original parents. Genesis is not scientifically compatible at all. To suppose that each was a billion years or so does not help either.
Michael Shermer is a science writer, he has degrees primarily in biology, but that doesn't stop one from reading and understanding reports written by physicists. His book briefly touches on the subject, but it shows how the claim that minute changes would cause no life at all is ridiculous. The constant that defines how much matter there is in the universe for example, is very very very low in this universe. Less than 0.00000001% of the universe is matter. You could easily increase this value without any negative affects on the chances of life arising. Likewise with the gravity constant.
*speechless* Ever heard of a metaphor??? Adams' metaphor is exactly how we view ourselves! We fit amazingly well into this universe, as if this universe were indeed created for us. However, as with the puddle, we now know that we fit into this universe because we have to abide by laws of nature. Just as the puddle only fits the hole perfectly because of gravity, we fit our environment because of evolution.
"Evidence is anything material that can be observed or tested under scientific conditions."
It's you who keeps insisting that all our definitions are wrong or don't cover everything. I've defined evidence over and over and you keep going back and back to it for no apparent reason.
Even if the Bible does state that "days of God are not the days of man", the genesis story is till very very wrong. The Earth wasn't created before light, the moon is not a light source, birds did not emerge at the same time as fish, and certainly not before land animals emerged, and the entire human race does not go back to 2 original parents. Genesis is not scientifically compatible at all. To suppose that each was a billion years or so does not help either.
Michael Shermer is a science writer, he has degrees primarily in biology, but that doesn't stop one from reading and understanding reports written by physicists. His book briefly touches on the subject, but it shows how the claim that minute changes would cause no life at all is ridiculous. The constant that defines how much matter there is in the universe for example, is very very very low in this universe. Less than 0.00000001% of the universe is matter. You could easily increase this value without any negative affects on the chances of life arising. Likewise with the gravity constant.
Quote:It doesn't even approach any type of arguement that I've ever seen or heard of so how can I compare it to arguements that nobody uses? Adams example is about something that is not alive, never mind being conscious. It can only make sense if its about something conscious which is pondering its existance.
*speechless* Ever heard of a metaphor??? Adams' metaphor is exactly how we view ourselves! We fit amazingly well into this universe, as if this universe were indeed created for us. However, as with the puddle, we now know that we fit into this universe because we have to abide by laws of nature. Just as the puddle only fits the hole perfectly because of gravity, we fit our environment because of evolution.
Quote:I've used counter examples on this discussion board which have gone totally ignored.We ignored your point, you commented on mine. Ignoring it means that either we agree or that we have no opinion on the point to give. You commented saying "I hope you don't expect me to take your puddle idea seriously?". Such a comment requires explanation, which I asked for.
