Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend

Wallet said:
All "matter" may be made up of chemicals but everything needed for life to exist and form is not "matter".
More...

That which is without chemicals is naught without them, for it has no matter.
 
yes right... 2 of the perhaps top minds in the science world are joking about the extreme fine tuning of the universe. I remember Einstein joking about e=mc squared.

along with about 500 other top guys I have quoted on these threads over the years.

you don't understand the need for a multiverse to explain the fine tuning of ours?
you think all these scientists are postulating untested unseen universes because they don't like Occam's razor?




piezoe said:
Ha Ha Ha. Both of these guys are toying with you, especially Susskind. (By that I mean, obviously, people like you, not you personally. Neither Susskind nor Penrose are saying nor believing what you think they are saying and believing. I am sure they are enjoying, with a twinkle in their eyes, notoriety among the "intelligent designer" lunatics. All of the really creative physicists I have personally known over the years were pranksters, as though they had never completely grown up . I assume it's a necessary trait of the exceptionally creative mind.)
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
yes right... 2 of the perhaps top minds in the science world are joking about the extreme fine tuning of the universe. I remember Einstein joking about e=mc squared.

along with about 500 other top guys I have quoted on these threads over the years.

you don't understand the need for a multiverse to explain the fine tuning of ours?
you think all these scientists are postulating untested unseen universes because they don't like Occam's razor?
More...


What???****####!!!boing! I thought we were discussing how absurd it is for you to conclude that there was(is?) an "inteligent designer" just because physical constants are precise.

By the way, we just found out last September that God collided two black holes together a billion light years ago. Have you read about it in Sunday School yet?:D
 
Last edited:
what a intellectually weak apology.

I was just disabusing you of your 1950s science ideas. I never said you had to conclude designer based on the fine tuning of our constants. In terms of science and your solutions to the fine tuning I agree with the choices Susskind stated in that video.

piezoe said:
What???****####!!!boing! I thought we were discussing how absurd it is for you to conclude that there was(is?) an "inteligent designer" just because physical constants are precise.

By the way, we just found out last September that God collided two black holes together a billion light years ago. Have you read about it in Sunday School yet?:D
More...
 
luck. he says so himself.
the idea that a something this designed has a designer is such a strong choice some top scientists in the field say that if there is no multiverse than they might have to pick designer.

We have had quotes and videos of top scientists in the field saying so.

Do you want me to link to the threads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top