Search results

What, so you're just making up any stupid shit whatsoever now. CERN does not show anything to confirm "extreme fine tuning of standard model." The standard model is incomplete. How the fck is it extremely fine tuned a when it's incomplete.:rolleyes: You can't point to one peer reviewed paper...

Not Penrose Susskind or any other scientist anywhere has any science or scientific evidence which states or confirms any constants or any part or whole of the universe itself is actually subject to any fine tuning. Nor do they claim to. You say that is fine tuning. Thousands of top scientists...

:D Here's one for him to be getting on with. 1+1 is almost certainly going to equal 2.

Perfect example of how you troll that dishonesty of yours. They say it appears fine tuned. To say constants ARE fine tuned would require at least some scientific evidence. There is none. None at all. That's the whole thing. How, or even if, a particular value is or what it seems to be, is not...

You don't even know what you said or what you're saying. You're untruthful and dishonest, so you wouldn't. Watching you back-peddle into yet more deceit is the sheer manifestation of your inability to be truthful. All my argument has been is, scientists say the Universe appears fine tuned...

Yes, but in search for the true facts of all creation so it might not remain unknowable, it simply would not be reasonable or sensible to assume supernatural irrational beliefs should be given equal weight to reasoned scientific knowledge. They are incompatible.

Of course as a fundamentally dishonest person you would say people are lying. So not a Creator then. Now it's the anthropic theory as to why the Universe is how it is. Your general lack of intellect and understanding has ironically done away with the need for a Creator all by itself.:p

...also not science:rolleyes:

Faith is what you have in absence of science.

Factually, those definitions which people continually fling about are nothing to do with science.

Inevitable: the science option that requires no Creator. Creator: the non-science option that wants a Creator. Faith: a lack of understanding when you don't have enough science.

It need only be that the physical properties of the Universe cannot come about other than they do for the Universe to be the way it is.

We must all do our natural duty to ensure it stays that way.

Throw one virgin in... superstitious. Throw two in... stupid waste.

Look at the chart then. The 11 year Moving Average after 2000 is flat and the data source includes 2014 if you'd cared to check! You're suggesting a 100 year period chart is only valid if it contains 2014 data (which it does anyway). Really?:rolleyes: It's a long moving average over a long...

It sure makes sense to trust in God when one spells it Nature.

The opposite of nature is supernatural abbreviated by the three letters - God.

Instead of throwing a bunch of different charts around when you are challenged, deal with the first one you threw and made the topic of the thread. You're saying a chart showing yearly temperature from NASA GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index spanning 120 years.... is fudged. You're saying...

Average temperature over 11 year periods, covering 100 years is cherry picking? While your measurement highlighting 2 x3 years periods and one 2 year period within a 24 year period to support the phrase "It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing".. is not cherry picking?