Revelation is starting to make some sense..

Let me counter a trolls first response.

That is a religious website.

This is taken from troll playbook page 5
And the Democrat talking points intro chapter.

It is a logical turd because it is the argument which matters not who makes.

It is particularly troll like when the data is available on other non religious websites books and academic archives.

It is even more troll like when it is quotes of experts in the field.
 
You're too irrational incoherent and angry to debate Jem, and can only repeat yourself anyway.

Fine tuning is an idiomatic expression for values, which are not some other values due to natural laws.

Quote from jem:
it is consistent with a creator to say something came out of nothing...
More...
Still smiling at that bloomer .
 
Quote from stu:

You're too irrational incoherent and angry to debate Jem, and can only repeat yourself anyway.

Fine tuning is an idiomatic expression for values, which are not some other values due to natural laws.


Still smiling at that bloomer .
More...

Perhaps you will find out about it when you meet a Creator who is outside our universe.
 
stu, your argument is insincere and idiotic.

Its math.
Math is universal not idomatic.



Quote from jem:

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

Degree of fine tuning

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).
More...
 
Quote from jem:
Perhaps you will find out about it when you meet a Creator who is outside our universe.
More...
Fermion fields don't really meet in that way.

Quote from jem:
Its math.
Math is universal not idomatic.
More...
The so called fine tuning you constantly repeat is not math. It's an idiomatic expression for values arrived at through math and science.
 
Quote from stu:

Fermion fields don't really meet in that way.

The so called fine tuning you constantly repeat is not math. It's an idiomatic expression for values arrived at through math and science.
More...


1. I would expect the Creator to be more like a Bosonic field.
Perhaps that is why some of us call Communion, Mass.

2. In some sense I can accept your latest definition.
 
Quote from jem:

1. I would expect the Creator to be more like a Bosonic field.
Perhaps that is why some of us call Communion, Mass.

2. In some sense I can accept your latest definition.
More...
1. As well as being the property of a physical structure causing it to have weight in a gravitational field, mass is also defined as an ill-structured collection of similar objects or people.
As far as communion goes, the latter would seem more approriate.

2. You mean in the sense that it's correct.
 
Quote from stu:

1. As well as being the property of a physical structure causing it to have weight in a gravitational field, mass is also defined as an ill-structured collection of similar objects or people.
As far as communion goes, the latter would seem more approriate.

2. You mean in the sense that it's correct.
More...

amusingly... it depends on how you are using the word idiomatic.

you are after all the troll who likes to pull a poor imitation of bill clinton and refuses to grant authority to dictionaries.
 
Lol what is amusing is you've just trolled out a response that tries to dance around the meaning of words like a poor imitation of bill clinton.
You really are too ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top