Randy: Yes, that is my argument. I take it from your response that you grant
the point.
No problem here.
>
> Pim:2) we do not understand if life outside this range is possible,
>
> Randy: But we do, that is the definition of the range in the ID argument. Let
> me restate my earlier argument this way with an additional qualifier:
>
> Randy: In a universe with no oxygen it is impossible for life that can only
> breathe oxygen to begin and then develop an adaptation to the lack of
> oxygen in the universe.
>
> Pim:Of course that is a given but what about other life forms which do
not rely on oxygen ?
Randy: Yes, I know it's a given, that's why I was puzzled when I stated it
before and you disagreed. Perhaps I just wasn't clear in my statements.
Ok so we agree...
>
> Randy: Let me close with this-I agree that the ID argument must deal with
> the possibilities of life forms besides carbon-based ones.
>
> Pim:That's for sure.
>
> Randy: But whatever form of life we wish to discuss must be compatible with the physical
> constants in the universe in which it forms. Life has no opportunity to live where it, by definition, CANNOt live until it develops an
adaption to the factors that have already killed it.
>
> Pim:True but that was not my argument.
Randy: Yes, I know, but it was my argument. I'm glad we're connecting now.
<g>
My argument is that we do not know what life forms are possible and that the apparant fine-tuning might merely point to the fact that exactly this life form is the one that could evolve. So the fine tuning has killed off all other possibilities.
But that does not show design.
>
Randy: I would tentatively agree and say that at the current stage of research
science can neither confirm nor deny the ID argument. If further research
ever does show that:
Randy: 1. Ours is the only kind of life that can exist
That will be quite a task
OR
Randy: 1a.The other kinds of life that can exist could also only begin in
narrow ranges of the physical constants in the universe.
But many narrow ranges might fill the whole range.
AND
Randy: 2. Ours is also the only universe that has ever existed or ever will
exist
That's irrelevant. Like a hand of cards having a low probability, one cannot argue against the fact that the hand was dealt.
then I think the ID argument would be confirmed.