haha A flood killed the dinasours?
- Thread starter athlonmank8
- Start date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They speculate the laws of nature are ajuste to make life (tuner), but no one know really. He say the constants can not be explained, so he think the purpose of the constants is for life.
Just his opinion because no other explanation in this time.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u-tC9MU852k&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u-tC9MU852k&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Some straightforward basic Puddle Thinking explains quite well how fitting an environment is no reason for a puddle or hole to think either has to be intelligently designed.
Clearly puddles do not need an intelligent design engineer to fit the surfaces of a hole so well. Nether does a hole need to get some intelligent design before it can fit the shape of a puddle to itself.
The same applies to the universe. Life too.
Puddle rules apply on the grandest scales.
Arguing for intelligent designers where non are needed, is like arguing every puddle and every hole needs fine tuning for each to accommodate the other.
Some straightforward basic Puddle Thinking explains quite well how fitting an environment is no reason for a puddle or hole to think either has to be intelligently designed.
Clearly puddles do not need an intelligent design engineer to fit the surfaces of a hole so well. Nether does a hole need to get some intelligent design before it can fit the shape of a puddle to itself.
The same applies to the universe. Life too.
Puddle rules apply on the grandest scales.
Arguing for intelligent designers where non are needed, is like arguing every puddle and every hole needs fine tuning for each to accommodate the other.
Game, set, match. Never heard this one or don't remember ever reading it. I'm stealin it.
Rather than bring science into the discussion we have ET atheists comparing the cosmological constant (and other constants) to a talking puddle.
I did not really think much of psychology when I was younger, because I did not really believe people would be so resistant to modifying their weltanschauungs.
But after years of seeing traders fail and now debating with ET atheists I have to admit my psychology and comparative religion professors were correct.
LOL stu your wit is remarkable razor sharp!
The reason you are hitting your head against the wall is that you are not debating me - you are refusing to understand science.
Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...
But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
I cut and post quotes from scientists. You post unsupported spew and I will show you why you can't argue science in the next post. Remember Dawkins lectures on this subject and is the darling of the left media.
Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...
But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
I cut and post quotes from scientists. You post unsupported spew and I will show you why you can't argue science in the next post. Remember Dawkins lectures on this subject and is the darling of the left media.