You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from jem:
1. I have faith that Jesus is God. I do not have scientific evidence of it.
2. When almost all the top scientists in the field state there is the appearance of fine tuning of the constants in our universe... how do you have the knowledge to say they are incorrect?
A couple of out of context quotes about "appearance " of fine tuning is not evidence of fine tuning, that's all I'm saying.
Quote from bigarrow:
A couple of out of context quotes about "appearance " of fine tuning is not evidence of fine tuning, that's all I'm saying.
none of my quotes are out of context... you really fall for stus bullshit?
how is this out of context...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
or this in which dawkins state there are physicists who say there appear to be fine tuings.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from jem:
Stu still being an ignorant troll. Its the multiverse guys pushing the anthropic explanation.
You calling the multiverse real science is like saying saying the underlying science of warp travel is physics so warp travel is science.
There is no proof of even a single other universe. Its all speculation not scientific theory. You a fool for suggesting otherwise. Susskind does not claim it to be scientific theory... you do.
Weren't you the troll who claimed parts of our universe had different constants?
Were you not the troll who said we have plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.
I suppose as your reasoning is so fucked up by now all you can do is deny what you said and say I said things I didn't.
You called multiverse "speculative pseudo science" , which it isn't, and then with an equal degree of brainlessness, denied you said it.
I've never described the multiverse in terms of "real science" nor have I said it wasn't speculative.
The anthropic principle isn't pushed as an explanation you idiot. The 'multiverse guys' have theoretical lines of scientifically reasoned hypotheses. There is no corresponding science for warp drives. Maybe try not to be such a tool all your life.
...and no, not a troll and not saying either of those things. However yourself, whilst trolling the same worn out bs and false claims, is calling everyone a troll whenever you can't follow because it doesn't leave space for your imaginary magical macrocosm manufacturer.
Wait a sec, what's wrong with the anthropic principle?Quote from stu:
I suppose as your reasoning is so fucked up by now all you can do is deny what you said and say I said things I didn't.
You called multiverse "speculative pseudo science" , which it isn't, and then with an equal degree of brainlessness, denied you said it.
I've never described the multiverse in terms of "real science" nor have I said it wasn't speculative.
The anthropic principle isn't pushed as an explanation...
Quote from jem:
a. That the constants of our universe appear very finely tuned, is evidence of a Tuner. Its is not proof but it is evidence.
That is why Stu tries so hard to lie about the existence of the tunings, he has lost his argument that there is no evidence.
b. Its not semantics... I kept telling stu there is an appearance of fine tunings and stu keeps trying to change the meaning of words so he does not have to admit that an appearance of fine tuning is evidence of a Tuner.
Well I don't know about professors arguing semantics. History suggests you don't really want to reason at all, but basically prefer to use a lot of insult and usually utter garbage that is simply untrue. Good guys don't really get to be deceitful the way you are.
You're the one who refers to Hawking - who says the only Tuner required ... is Gravity.
You're the one who refers to Weinberg - who states "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature."
So why do you keep trying to pretend, distort, misrepresent that, with half baked ill-reasoned conclusions you form by the moronic endless repeating of a couple of Penrose and Dawkin videos that don't make your case anyway (whatever the hell your case is from one minute to the next).
In any appearance of fine tuning, that means, in the first instance, any so called tunings; values that can result in a habitable universe and values that don't, are all equally unlikely.
Just because one particular set occurs and it meant you could know about those numbers (thanks only to science), doesn't make them any more exceptional in themselves to any or all of the others.
One obvious reason why it's said to be an appearance only .