As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that the universe is a violent and chaotic place.
Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?
As you have been instructed... you don't get to instruct me or make up your own facts.
"Finely tuned" does not mean the universe is docile, orderly, stable, non-chaotic. You are quite literally misinterpreting the meaning of "finely tuned" whether unintentionally or on purpose.
"Finely tuned" describes the various constants, ratios, weights and forces.
We've discovered at least 40 of these so far.
Here is a list if you want to review them all. There are also a number of credible physicists and cosmologists who have written books on the subject of a finely tuned universe.
I'll give you a sample, since you were whining for one yesterday:
Freeman John Dyson FRS is a British-American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering (
Disturbing the Universe):
“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”
Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge Astrophysicist (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”): “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of Carbon 12 to the 7.12 Mev level in Oxygen 16. if you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose (
The Nature of Space and Time) “Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.”
George Ellis (British Astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”
Paul Davies (Physicist and Philosopher, Professor at Arizona State University): “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs (of which there are 40) must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleus and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.”
Alister McGrath Specialist in Science & Theology (
A Fine-Tuned Universe. p. 141-2): “Our attention focuses on one critical aspect of the biochemical processes that are thought to have led to life. The fundamental properties of the chemical elements, which are exploited
but not created by biological processes, have to be such that these metabolic pathways are possible in the first place. Equally, if Darwinian evolution is to take place and to be regarded as essential to a definition of life, the chemistry of nature must be such that replication is possible–in other words, such that DNA or its functional equivalent can exist…. The origins of life are thus unquestionably anthropic…. On the basis of the know biochemical systems, biological evolution remains dependent upon chemical processes which were ultimately determined in the primordial state of the universe.”
McGrath (
A Fine-Tuned Universe, p. 164): “Chemical reality constrains evolution: these processes can occur only because the chemistry of certian metals, predetermined by quantum mechanical parameters, permits them to do so. If this were not the case, evolution could not have found its way to such solutions as photsynthesis, nitrogen fixing, or oxygen transport. Evolution can only fine-tune itself because of the predetermined properties of chemical elements. Had they been significantly different, this fine-tuning within nature could not take place.”
