Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

jem · Apr 17, 2012

Stu not only contradicts Penrose he contradicts nobel prize winners

For instance

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm
--
Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."

The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000,

but instead:

1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."

Quote from stu:

That the laws of physics work a certain way within a narrow range of values is the science.
That those values can't come about by the laws of physics, is not science, and there is no science anywhere, which even suggests anything of the sort.

You are still hopelessly trying to support a flawed non scientific assertion called fine tuning, off the back of what is understood through scientific knowledge and observation.

It always makes me laugh how you talk so ignorantly whilst at the same time destroying your silly claim from the links you provide yourself lol!
So this is how carbon comes about, no need for "fine tuning"

" The concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first established by Hoyle in 1946. This provided a way to explain the existence of elements heavier than helium in the universe, basically by showing that critical elements such as carbon could be generated in stars and then incorporated in other stars and planets when that star "dies". The new stars formed now start off with these heavier elements and even heavier elements are formed from them. Hoyle theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by supernovas, the giant explosions which occasionally occur throughout the universe, whose temperatures and pressures would be required to create such elements."

Enormous chaotic super massive explosions and an explanation via the laws of physics, that says, is what it takes. No mention or need of "fine tuning" then.

You might try and study the content you post a bit more. Lol!

Until then Dream on.

stu · Apr 17, 2012

That's it Jem, when you can't think of anything, troll out the same old non scientific bs commentry on Penrose and Weinberg from a creationist website for the billionth time, just like an idiot would.

jem · Apr 17, 2012

If not for a tuning to 120 decimal places there would be no universe Stu.

Stu has seen this before but he still lies about it... Why?

The reason I trot this out is because you are still lying.

stu · Apr 17, 2012

Yeah I know, and the reason you trot out the words lies and lying is because you don't want to consider anything that doesn't fit with your pre formed religious conclusions.
You always want look down the wrong end of a 'probability telescope' and imagine you see science.

Stand on a beach hold out your hand as the wind carries a grain of sand onto the tip of your finger.
Think how many grains of sand on all the beaches on all the earth. Then say to yourself, if not for hundreds or thousands of decimal places, that particular grain of sand would not be there . What are the chances? A fraction either way and no sand grain would settle.
A fine tuner must have put it there, instead of the wind and the laws of physics and some sand. Really! Does that sound ok to you. puleeze.

You can calculate roughly for every single grain of sand on Earth there are around 100 stars in the cosmos, or more. Incredible.
At least a hundred to one increased opportunities for stars and the laws of physics, to form their particular elemental particles, falling into what is thought to be a narrow range, but not as narrow a range as sand landing on your finger.
As opposed to an imaginary magic sky wizard having to unintelligently piss about fitting cosmological constants into tight corners, and grains of sand onto fingers, when anyone with half a brain if they were going to have to do that, would have more intelligently created everything efficiently and sensibly to minimize the infinite buggering about .
But that's the thing about religion, intelligent design creationism. They teach people like you how not to understand the universe.

jem · Apr 17, 2012

you are truly brain dead if you think that is a proper analogy.
we eliminated that crappy argument years ago.

This not about being having a grain of sand on your finger. Its about sticking up you figure and having that and only that same grain of sand hit your finger a trillion of times in a row in trillions of different hurricanes.

And again you are using your child like understanding of the subject to attempt to say you know more on the subject than Penrose and Rees and Weinberg and Hawking and Susskind and just about ever other top scientist save Stenger. (and even stenger does not really have an explanation)

QUOTE]Quote from stu:

Yeah I know, and the reason you trot out the words lies and lying is because you don't want to consider anything that doesn't fit with your pre formed religious conclusions.
You always want look down the wrong end of a 'probability telescope' and imagine you see science.

Stand on a beach hold out your hand as the wind carries a grain of sand onto the tip of your finger.
Think how many grains of sand on all the beaches on all the earth. Then say to yourself, if not for hundreds or thousands of decimal places, that particular grain of sand would not be there . What are the chances? A fraction either way and no sand grain would settle.
A fine tuner must have put it there, instead of the wind and the laws of physics and some sand. Really! Does that sound ok to you. puleeze.

You can calculate roughly for every single grain of sand on Earth there are around 100 stars in the cosmos, or more. Incredible.
At least a hundred to one increased opportunities for stars and the laws of physics, to form their particular elemental particles, falling into what is thought to be a narrow range, but not as narrow a range as sand landing on your finger.
As opposed to an imaginary magic sky wizard having to unintelligently piss about fitting cosmological constants into tight corners, and grains of sand onto fingers, when anyone with half a brain if they were going to have to do that, would have more intelligently created everything efficiently and sensibly to minimize the infinite buggering about .
But that's the thing about religion, intelligent design creationism. They teach people like you how not to understand the universe. [/QUOTE]

stu · Apr 18, 2012

Bullshit.
A grain of sand, any grain of sand, not a red herring to land on your finger.

The analogy is that considering the one specific grain of sand out of all possible grains produces what are perceived to be enormous odds, but is totally consistent with the laws of physics, not a magic man.
Trying make the sand disappear into one grain and introduce a hurricane too, belongs in your voodoo pseudoscience manual along with all the names to drop because you can't even understand let alone hold the argument.

Quote from jem:

you are truly brain dead if you think that is a proper analogy.
we eliminated that crappy argument years ago.

This not about being having a grain of sand on your finger. Its about sticking up you figure and having that and only that same grain of sand hit your finger a trillion of times in a row in trillions of different hurricanes.

And again you are using your child like understanding of the subject to attempt to say you know more on the subject than Penrose and Rees and Weinberg and Hawking and Susskind and just about ever other top scientist save Stenger. (and even stenger does not really have an explanation)

jem · Apr 18, 2012

Quote from stu:

Bullshit.
A grain of sand, any grain of sand, not a red herring to land on your finger.

The analogy is that considering the one specific grain of sand out of all possible grains produces what are perceived to be enormous odds, but is totally consistent with the laws of physics, not a magic man.
Trying make the sand disappear into one grain and introduce a hurricane too, belongs in your voodoo pseudoscience manual along with all the names to drop because you can't even understand let alone hold the argument.

Ok you are right... penrose weinberg, hawking, susskind, hoyle and others all goofed.

Hawking wasted his time writing papers and books about m theory and the multiverse and countering the appearance of fine tuning by dreaming up m theory coupled with top down cosmology.

They don't understand... if only they could comprehend your one grain of sand analogy. If only they thought of it first.

jem · Apr 20, 2012

You talk about a random grain of sand hitting your finger.
You talk out of your ass and you manifest your ignorance of this subject. And you deceitful nature.

I showed you a video where Penrose tells you this.
Do you get this... this is just one fine tuning... I showed you the video where Penrose tells you this.

Penrose's calculated probability was one part in 10^(10^30), which is 1 followed by 10^30 zeros. And 10^30 is itself 1 followed by 30 zeros. So, the probability works out to be one part in 10^(100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000), i.e., 10 raised to the power of 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, or 1 followed by a thousand billion billion billion zeros (i.e., 1 followed by a nonillion zeros).
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 â¦ â¦ â¦ â¦ â¦ 00001
If I were to write this number out, as 0.0000 0000 â¦, with all of its zeros, we would need a computer hard-drive much larger than the size of our entire universe, just to hold all of the zeros that I would have to write out.

stu · Apr 20, 2012

It's perfectly clear by now you don't understand a thing that's being said to you, no need to froth at the mouth so much.

The thing you call 'Penroses calculation' is no such thing. To do probability you need a probability function. There isn't one to be seen. So someone has clipped Penrose mid explanation and is clearly trying to get him to say something he isn't. The normal trick of a creationist. And you've been taken in hook line and sinker. Because you're a creationist.

Time for you to drop some more names and another shit load of misinformation.

jem · Apr 20, 2012

Quote from stu:

It's perfectly clear by now you don't understand a thing that's being said to you, no need to froth at the mouth so much.

The thing you call 'Penroses calculation' is no such thing. To do probability you need a probability function. There isn't one to be seen. So someone has clipped Penrose mid explanation and is clearly trying to get him to say something he isn't. The normal trick of a creationist. And you've been taken in hook line and sinker. Because you're a creationist.

Time for you to drop some more names and another shit load of misinformation.

So you know enough about this subject and this guy's work to say he does not understand density functions...

Stu, were you born to a clown family?

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher..