You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
really? after 7 years of you and Geppetto being moronic trolls, you are going to make this the STU pidest of statements.... you don't understand the most basic definition of this subject?
try google you might learn something.
try google you might learn something.
But they are not tuned, because that presumes a tuner.
really?
after 7 years of my posting articles and then videos of top scientists and papers you and geppetto remain that ignorant?
try google you might learn something.
I really don't care who are what says the universe is fine tuned. They are wrong. It may "appear" to be fine tuned - which is actually what they are saying - but it is NOT fine tuned because that presumes a tuner................ and most of the top cosmologists are atheists.
I just wanted to make sure this stuck around. its a winner.
I really don't care who are what says the universe is fine tuned. They are wrong. It may "appear" to be fine tuned - which is actually what they are saying - but it is NOT fine tuned because that presumes a tuner................ and most of the top cosmologists are atheists.
odd... I thought the opposite of the sock puppet drone.
it was typical of his exact stance on agw and other things contrary to leftist propaganda.
he does not care what the science says because he makes up his own definition of what a greenhouse gas can do... and then he implies it can only warm, time and time again.. unless he is challenged... they he backs away... then he says it again on a new thread.
it was typical of his exact stance on agw and other things contrary to leftist propaganda.
he does not care what the science says because he makes up his own definition of what a greenhouse gas can do... and then he implies it can only warm, time and time again.. unless he is challenged... they he backs away... then he says it again on a new thread.
I think he wrote poorly what he meant, but it does sound quite a bit like the anti-AGW argument.
Are you FC's official apologist now?I think he wrote poorly what he meant, but it does sound quite a bit like the anti-AGW argument.
Your statement denies, implicitly, the standard model of physics.
Except of course, it doesn't.
"What is your motivation for being such a lying fraud?"
"7 years being a moronic troll, you a make the stupidest statements"
"try google you might learn something."
The constants of our universe are finely tuned for life.
Are or appear. Which one. It can't be both. The Earth IS flat or it Appears flat. Which is it, do you even understand that much ?
"Let's see you back that up, mental midget."
We are dealing with a bunch of leftist trolls... who have no problem saying the most incredible dumb things...
really stu?
can't appear and be at the same time
you appear to be a troll and you are a troll.
the fire appears hot and is hot.
the fundamental constants of the universe appear finely tuned and are finely tuned.
really stu?
can't appear and be at the same time
you appear to be a troll and you are a troll.
the fire appears hot and is hot.
the fundamental constants of the universe appear finely tuned and are finely tuned.
Except of course, it doesn't.
"What is your motivation for being such a lying fraud?"
"7 years being a moronic troll, you a make the stupidest statements"
"try google you might learn something."
Are or appear. Which one. It can't be both. The Earth IS flat or it Appears flat. Which is it, do you even understand that much ?
"Let's see you back that up, mental midget."
I must remind stu... that the point of the paper he presented was to mount a preliminary challenge to the virtually universally accepted idea that cosmological constant is fined tuned for life.
[/QUOTE]Here is the link to the cornell library to the paper your article cited....
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444
Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life
Don N. Page
(Submitted on 12 Jan 2011 (v1), last revised 28 Jan 2011 (this version, v2))
The effective coupling `constants' of physics, especially the cosmological constant, are observed to have highly biophilic values. If this is not a hugely improbable accident, or a consequence of some mysterious logical necessity or of some simple principle of physics, it might be explained as a consequence either of an observership selection principle within a multiverse of many sets of effective coupling constants, or else of some biophilic principle that fine tunes the constants of physics to optimize life. Here a very preliminary inconclusive hint of evidence is presented against the hypothesis of optimal fine tuning of the cosmological constant by a biophilic principle that would maximize the fraction of baryons that form living organisms or observers.