Search results

I suggested a number as meaningful as any other. I'm saying large or small it doesn't matter. It would make no difference.

" Dawkins cited Rees Book"... ...and Dawkins disagrees with Rees in the vid you showed, so how exactly is that me "arguing with the best minds in science"? Makes one wonder what sort of messed up mind you really have, that can make such idiotic comments and think it still sensible to...

You're asking me to think of a number for something which has no known number. ookaay...42. Your point please?

There may only be a few which can occur, otherwise no variations. Even if there are astronomical odds against variations or a galactic number of variations, such odds occur all the time, even in card games, and yet their associated outcomes happen many times everyday.

Lol that was no typo I was pointing out. That was pure irony borne out of your own gaumlessness. :p Science understands, as you put it, no such thing. Science understands the term fine tuning is a description in theoretical physics for describing problematic given values. The anthropic...

"I am just educated you with what others wrote." Irony. Don't ya love it.:p You get worse and worse. I've already explained what don't YOU get? The article is a bible thumper's assertions with - unjustified conclusion drawing on what - he says Martin Rees means - by mine quoted...

ugghh... same old appearances of something not supported by any scientific evidence.....therefore it must have all been due to a horror story book, fictional characters in it and a magic sky creator man and because a bible thumpers own interpretations say so. sheesh It sure sounds like...

Yeah it's funny how often a religious apologists will accuse someone else of the very thing they are doing themselves, and how you as an idiot will fall for it. You'll have to do better than just display old creationist tactics repeating things that aren't true. You don't even understand...

Dawkins explained apparent fine tuning in the video you produced. He could just as easily have explained the apparent flatness of the earth. Only you didn't bother with that. You were too busy changing his words. If you feel better lying to yourself that I have denied something which does...

LOL :D No coherent argument, just another repeat of the already refuted - cut & paste trolled out. Still, you do expertly demonstrate how willfully ignorant a creationist is determined to be. "Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience" Indeed.

What a loser. Misquoting words others state as you do to suggest something different , is dishonest. Do you really expect dishonesty is the only way to support your creationist beliefs? Well, actually. yes it is. Scientists suggesting - does NOT mean there is evidence. Anyone can suggest...

Yes it is clearly stated for all to listen. But you didn't listen. Dawkins actually says in the vid, "..some physicists have suggested... " He does not state "physicists say the universe is fine tuned" as you wrongly misquoted him saying, putting what he does say completely out of context...

Not at 1 min 28 seconds nor any other place does Dawkins state what your incorrect out of context misquote claims, that .... "physicists say the universe is fine tuned" What is the matter with you? You did the same with a Susskind vid. You couldn't hear what was actually being said, only...

You ARE taking quotes out of context. I've shown you time after time how and where the quotes you give do not support your assertions that the universe is fined tuned. You never address any refutations directly. What you do though, like a retard, is to just repeat another out of context...

In my view, once you say if God exists, all coherent, logical, reasonable, and rational ideas just fly out the window. But things like God concepts, that try to coerce through violence, psychological or otherwise, should be strongly resisted. It's not really very honorable to succumb to...

Terrorism is not morally defensible. Threats are not a basis for love. Telling yourself horror stories to justify a belief in something reprehensible, is hardly a wholesome thing for anyone to do.

Lol That's a disambiguation page you tool. No wonder you haven't a clue. Proof of impossibility in mathematics, which you gave as an example for Proving a negative, is not Proving a negative, is therefore a wrong example, and is ignorant. You thinking a wiki disambiguation page is a...

Already done on numerous occasions. Address your ignorant unfounded misleading illogical infantile assertions.

Lol, dear me, now I even have to explain your own argument to you. The cosmological constant is an Einsteinian Equation. In regard to A cosmological constant, it is what your creationist assertion is drummed up from, speculating on findings in theoretical physics, which appear to suggest...

Just don't let His mighty noodleness hear you say that. The odds for any invisible friends are well, perhaps, somewhere anyone should draw the line at.