“The anthropic principles (from oxygen levels, to gravity, to water vapor, to the expansion of the universe) are all so fine tuned as to suggest this IS the place God chose for humanity”
Sorry, that is romantic and poetic and all, but in reality, if an evolutionist was correct, and we came into existence because of our environment, then exactly where else would you -expect- to find us?
It is an extremely self centered point of view that we require conditions “X”, so clearly everything was made as it is, solely to support us. It is just as logical to think that life that evolved in this environment would be perfectly fine tuned for this environment because it couldn’t evolve in a place that is hostile to it.
For example, we couldn’t have evolved as we did on a planet with an ammonia atmosphere, so of course we will be found on an earthlike planet.
— “Sorry, that is romantic and poetic and all, but in reality, if an evolutionist was correct, and we came into existence because of our environment, then exactly where else would you -expect- to find us? —
Your argument is way off. Even secular scientists see something to the “fine-tuned universe argument,” something they have to try to explain, or explain away. And if they can’t ignore it, then that tells you a bit of how compelling the evidence for it is.
Life is not some simple thing, which rather easily exists in our universe.
Right now, in the Northern Hemisphere of our planet, it is quite hot. In winter, it will get quite cold here. For us creatures here on Earth, just the slightest variation in temperature, universe-wise, can easily freeze us to death or cook us to death, since a mere 50 degrees Fahrenheit shift is drastic to us (and what is a shift of a 100 degrees in terms of the universes various temperatures?). Yet our earth provides a habitat right in between the upper and lower temperatures we can tolerate.
Now if the temperature range was much different and inhospitable to us, do you say that “just different life forms would have evolved here”? Well, given all the things needed for life, and how they all have to fit nicely together, that would likely make life here impossible.
“It is an extremely self centered point of view that we require conditions “X”, so clearly everything was made as it is, solely to support us...”
No, it isn’t “extremely self centered”! That’s what the Bible tells us, and the Bible is GOD-CENTERED! All that’s being said is that God created us, as well as this universe for us to live in, and this planet for us to live on. Nothing more, and nothing “self-centered” about it, in the least. It’s all about HIM.
— It is just as logical to think that life that evolved in this environment would be perfectly fine tuned for this environment because it couldn’t evolve in a place that is hostile to it.
For example, we couldn’t have evolved as we did on a planet with an ammonia atmosphere, so of course we will be found on an earthlike planet.” —
Once again, you’re not being logical as you claim to be. Address some of the specifics in this article:
If secular humanist science hasn’t yet been able dismiss the prospect of a fine-tuned universe, then how do you say that you can?
God in His Word tells us that He is made the universe so that unmistakably we see that it is His work.
"Came into existence because of our enviornment" is an odd phrase. Two problems: first, something from nothing is an impossibility as it defies the first law of thermodynamics (all energy already exists) and the second law of thermodynamics (things move from order to disorder, never the other way). Second, no evolutionist has ever been able to create "first life." All evolutionists can hope to "create" is microevolution (small changes within the same species), never macroevolution (from one entity to a different entity).
This is right in line with the Genesis account of creation, where it is recorded that each thing that was created was "after its kind."