Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

Stu does not understand this but claims Penrose... this guy does not understand probability.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and here is the science including density functions.

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
 
So there is the science Stu for just two fine tunings as described by
Weinberg and Penrose.

Have the guts to address it here... because anytime you bring up your b.s. on other threads...

I will show this one... and make the argument this is the forum for the argument and you failed to present one.

Show us why Penrose was wrong...
Show us why Weinberg is wrong when he speaks of fine tuning.
 
Quote from jem:
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..
More...
Exactly why he cannot be saying what you are always trying to pretend he is.
Penrose is explaining how impossibly fine a (metaphorical) Creator's aim would have to be to select a low entropy universe such as this one.
So as a creationist you turn that inside out to say something he doesn't .

Evolving universes signify the values of cosmological constants would be inevitable not impossible. So no God is required anyway.

"Show us why Penrose was wrong...
Show us why Weinberg is wrong when he speaks of fine tuning."

They aren't wrong. You are.

Quote from jem:
Have the guts to address it here... because anytime you bring up your b.s. on other threads...
I will show this one... and make the argument this is the forum for the argument and you failed to present one.
More...

As a creationist and a religious idiot , you would do that.
 
Quote from Mercor:

Science is dynamic.
The science of today will be proven false by the science of tomorrow.
More...

Will it all be false? Will it turn out that the earth is really flat, or perhaps shaped like a bowling pin? What fraction of it will turn out to be false? A little bit, a lot, or practically all of it?
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

... Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. By Dr. Francis Collins
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
More...

When it is written "descent from a common ancestor," I assume what is meant is that all of what we consider to be mankind descended from a common ancestor. There are enough reasonable questions based on statistics and recent science to at least question whether this is true. I think that there is a reasonable chance that this is one of the hypotheses that will be eventually proven false. It could be true, but evidence is mounting that it may not be. Possibly earlier archaeological and paleontological thinking was "poisoned" by the Christian Bible.

The genomic evidence, so far, seems to support at least the idea that modern man had a common ancestor.

On the other hand, if by "descent from a common ancestor" you mean all life forms, then I think that to be virtually impossible. That is to say, if one assumes that life forms originated on the Earth, then it is highly likely that there were, and likely are, an astronomical number of sites where lifeforms had -- are having -- their beginning. Personally, I am not inclined to believe that the focus of these sites was the "Garden of Eden".:D
 
I just realized that when I wrote above: "an astronomical number of sites where lifeforms had -- are having -- their beginning" That I should have written instead "an astronomical number of sites where lifeforms could have potentially begun or may still be beginning." There is quite an important difference between those two statements.
 
Stu...
1. You just made a distinction without a difference. I am telling you the science. Nothing more. You have been arguing there is no appearance of fine tuning.

2. your statement about evolving universes is an example of you proving my point... unless you wish to present a theory of everything right here on Elitetrader and win a Nobel prize.

3. Finally... here is what I am saying... you have been full of shit when you say -- there are no scientists saying there is an appearance of fine tuning.
And for that you are a total fucking idiot.

Quote from jem:

Stu does not understand this but claims Penrose... this guy does not understand probability.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and here is the science including density functions.

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
More...
 
Now look who's pretending... the same STUpid ignoranus who "thought" there were only 42 possible variations of the universe :p
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3341635#post3341635

It's so obvious you don't have a clue. Go back to school instead of incessantly making a fool of yourself on ET.
Quote from stu:

Exactly why he cannot be saying what you are always trying to pretend he is.
Penrose is explaining how impossibly fine a (metaphorical) Creator's aim would have to be to select a low entropy universe such as this one.
So as a creationist you turn that inside out to say something he doesn't .

Evolving universes signify the values of cosmological constants would be inevitable not impossible. So no God is required anyway.

"Show us why Penrose was wrong...
Show us why Weinberg is wrong when he speaks of fine tuning."

They aren't wrong. You are.



As a creationist and a religious idiot , you would do that.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top