Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

jem · May 30, 2012

Quote from Free Thinker:

with jem if any scientist ever said the word "designed" in any context jem will somehow twist it into a claim that said scientist beleives in intelligent design.

I have quoted you dozens of scientists including hawking who say our universe appears fine tuned.

They speculate the tuning can be explained by a multiverse.

You must be a dope or a zealout to not understand that by now.

stu · May 30, 2012

Quote from jem:

I have quoted you dozens of scientists including hawking who say our universe appears fine tuned.

They speculate the tuning can be explained by a multiverse.

You must be a dope or a zealout to not understand that by now.

Not true.
You've merely misquoted a few scientists who used the phrase the universe appears fine tuned, but who then continue to explain why it isn't.

Hawking has said it's all down to Gravity not god anyway, so any appearance of fine tuning does not need anything else like a tuner, divine or otherwise.

You must be dishonest and closed minded not to understand that much by now.

futurecurrents · May 30, 2012

Quote from stu:

Not true.
You've merely misquoted a few scientists who used the phrase the universe appears fine tuned, but who then continue to explain why it isn't.

Hawking has said it's all down to Gravity not god anyway, so any appearance of fine tuning does not need anything else like a tuner, divine or otherwise.

You must be dishonest and closed minded not to understand that much by now.

Yes, intentionally stupid also. I found that out while discussing global warming with him.

But he's very good at it. Gotta give him that much. Plus at least he tries to sound intelligent and uses quite a bit of intellectual energy to stick to untenable positions, unlike many of the other right-wing wackos here who just use drive-by insults and one-liners.

CaptainObvious · May 30, 2012

Quote from stu:

Not true.
You've merely misquoted a few scientists who used the phrase the universe appears fine tuned, but who then continue to explain why it isn't.

Hawking has said it's all down to Gravity not god anyway, so any appearance of fine tuning does not need anything else like a tuner, divine or otherwise.

You must be dishonest and closed minded not to understand that much by now.

Hawking suggested gravity could be the importat factor. Could cause, not did cause. Using that logic God could have created the universe. Could be a lot of things. Pick your poison.

stu · May 30, 2012

Quote from futurecurrents:

Yes, intentionally stupid also. I found that out while discussing global warming with him.

But he's very good at it. Gotta give him that much. Plus at least he tries to sound intelligent and uses quite a bit of intellectual energy to stick to untenable positions, unlike many of the other right-wing wackos here who just use drive-by insults and one-liners.

Intentionally or wilfully stupid whilst trying to sound intelligent is a fair summary of Jem.
However I would say constantly trolling the same dead arguments the way he does, over and over when they have already been debunked as many times, is energetic I agree, but I wouldn't call it intellectual.

stu · May 30, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:
Hawking suggested gravity could be the importat factor. Could cause, not did cause. Using that logic God could have created the universe. Could be a lot of things. Pick your poison.

That's not what he said or suggests.

futurecurrents · May 30, 2012

Straight lines and elegant spirals. How could this be? Random chance dictated by omnipotent chaos........and fine-tuned by gravity. I mean our "God".

Messier 109 as it appeared 80 million years ago. Hundreds of billions of stars. Just look near the Big Dipper and wave hello. In 80 million years someone there might see it.

jem · May 30, 2012

Quote from stu:

Not true.
You've merely misquoted a few scientists who used the phrase the universe appears fine tuned, but who then continue to explain why it isn't.

Hawking has said it's all down to Gravity not god anyway, so any appearance of fine tuning does not need anything else like a tuner, divine or otherwise.

You must be dishonest and closed minded not to understand that much by now.

You lie. and your sock puppet is a clown.

How many times do I have to produce this paper from
CERN... dept of physics and cambridge Hertog and Hawking.

This is not a paper from religious website as you have bullshitted in the past. And this is the whole paper. Not a quote mine. (another one of your b.s. lines)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully ﬁne-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inﬂation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---

stu · May 30, 2012

Quote from jem:

You lie. and your sock puppet is a clown.

How many times do I have to produce this paper from
CERN... dept of physics and cambridge Hertog and Hawking.

This is not a paper from religious website as you have bullshitted in the past. And this is the whole paper. Not a quote mine. (another one of your b.s. lines)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully ﬁne-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inﬂation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---

.....constantly trolling the same dead arguments over and over when they have already been debunked.

jem · May 30, 2012

how man times does dawkins have to say this to you.

note... the author wove in quotes form weinberg whom you misrepresented in the past.

if this tape does not kick you ass... you are the most ignorant people on the planet. listen to weinberg correct dawkins.

by the way I am not endorsing the allah stuff in the end.

Just the fact that weinberg just repeated what I have been telling you for years.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oO0QRUX4HGE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>