Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

[stu]

Quote from jem:

is your brain impaired - seriously are you sick?
watch it again... he is discussing the fine tuning of carbon. Dawkins injected Hoyles name.

Weinberg disputes that carbon and nucleosyntheis shows a fine tuning. But, right there that is proof some scientists argue for the appearance of fine tunings.

So you can stfu now. That is more proof some scientists say that our universe appears finely tuned.

But if you listen another seconds to 3 mins and 40 seconds this noble prize winner tells you about the appearance of a fantistic fine tuning.

So now you can stfu for all time on this issues.
Some great scientist state there is an appearance of fine tunings.. and it may or may not ever be explained.

If a great scientist states there is an appearance of fine tuning BUT...says before or after that remark...

• 
  "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature."
  
  "Well, the fact that there is such an energy level at just that energy does not require a fine tuning of it "
  
  "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."

then the great scientist is giving no more credibility to the appearance of fine tuning than he would to the appearance of a flat Earth.

Why are you always trying to spin that insignificant remark into something it isn't. Are your religious beliefs so much out of kilter that you think deluding yourself to this degree will compensate?

 

[jem]

Just watch your video again starting at 3 mins 4O seconds.

1. "There is one constant that seems to be fantastically fine tuned..."

That is Weinberg... a noble prize winner on this very subject.
Telling you there is an appearance of fine tuning.


Stu you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

Quote from stu:

If a great scientist states there is an appearance of fine tuning BUT...says before or after that remark...

• 
  "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature."
  
  "Well, the fact that there is such an energy level at just that energy does not require a fine tuning of it "
  
  "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature."

then the great scientist is giving no more credibility to the appearance of fine tuning than he would to the appearance of a flat Earth.

Why are you always trying to spin that insignificant remark into something it isn't. Are your religious beliefs so much out of kilter that you think deluding yourself to this degree will compensate?

 

[jem]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HgQBgE_TiHo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
He disputes the idea that Carbon is fine tuned.

Then he is saying there is a constant that is not appearing fine tuned! Isn't it the creationist's argument that all the constants fit into a tiny set of values and therefore the universe must be fine tuned.

So as each constant gets to be explained, the fine tuning pseudo-argument diminishes by degree like every other creationist claim. So what's new?

Watch the video and listen to what Weinberg says starting at 3 mins 4O seconds, or before, or after, and the only rational conclusion to be made is Weinberg does not accept there is anything to support any claim for an appearance of fine tuning.

Quote from jem:
1. "There is one constant that seems to be fantastically fine tuned..."

Chopped the end of his sentence off, your usual style, so to mislead.

1. "There is one constant that seems to be fantastically fine tuned but again we're not sure..." is what he said,
...because, as he goes onto explain... vast numbers of big bangs could be the reason why it [dark energy] is at any speculated values.

You missed that. Really?
Well do remember not all that long ago in the scheme of things, the Earth seemed flat. Although there again great scientists were saying.. "but again we're not sure".

If the cosmological values of the universe are so unlikely, then any other values are equally improbable too.
All being equally unlikely, one particular configuration isn't going to be special, fine tuned, or particularly unlikely, just because it occurred.
Any other one would be just as improbable as the next.

Quote from jem:

Stu you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

I've seen your scales at work before.

 

[jem]

I did not miss it, I left it out on purpose.

I just got you to quote a Nobel prize winner... confirming what I have been saying for 5 years.

I have made that very statement to you a hundred times over the last 5 years...

You just acknowledged that a Nobel prize winner states there is an appearance of fine tuning.

For 5-7 years you said no scientists say there is an appearance of fine tuning.

Well guess what... you just ate shit.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Then he is saying there is a constant that is not appearing fine tuned! Isn't it the creationist's argument that all the constants fit into a tiny set of values and therefore the universe must be fine tuned.

So as each constant gets to be explained, the fine tuning pseudo-argument diminishes by degree like every other creationist claim. So what's new?

Watch the video and listen to what Weinberg says starting at 3 mins 4O seconds, or before, or after, and the only rational conclusion to be made is Weinberg does not accept there is anything to support any claim for an appearance of fine tuning.

Chopped the end of his sentence off, your usual style, so to mislead.

1. "There is one constant that seems to be fantastically fine tuned but again we're not sure..." is what he said,
...because, as he goes onto explain... vast numbers of big bangs could be the reason why it [dark energy] is at any speculated values.

You missed that. Really?
Well do remember not all that long ago in the scheme of things, the Earth seemed flat. Although there again great scientists were saying.. "but again we're not sure".

If the cosmological values of the universe are so unlikely, then any other values are equally improbable too.
All being equally unlikely, one particular configuration isn't going to be special, fine tuned, or particularly unlikely, just because it occurred.
Any other one would be just as improbable as the next.

I've seen your scales at work before.

Note... you lied again.

creationists are not saying all constants appear fined tuned.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from jem:

Why are you lying? What good does it do you to be so deceptive?

As I have told you 100 times... the appearance of fine tuning may be explained by the multiverse... but weinberg tells you there multiverse is very speculatiive.. it is not even a theory.

He says it is troubling and there may be no scientific explanation for the appearance of fine tuning.

What exactly is this "fine tuning" you're talking about.
I haven't read all your posts so you may have stated your opinion on this.
Questions are: what is fine tuning, how was it tuned was it tools, thought, magic exactly how, and who or what is tuning ? A superior race a great magician a panel of universe managers and engineers.. Who ?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I did not miss it, I left it out on purpose.

I just got you to quote a Nobel prize winner... confirming what I have been saying for 5 years.

I have made that very statement to you a hundred times over the last 5 years...

You just acknowledged that a Nobel prize winner states there is an appearance of fine tuning.

For 5-7 years you said no scientists say there is an appearance of fine tuning.

Well guess what... you just ate shit.

Grasping at straws again.

For 5-7 years you said no scientists say there is an appearance of fine tuning.
I have never said any such thing. An appearance of fine tuning BUT.... is not fine tuning.

You have never been willing or able to explain how the appearance of fine tuning (whatever it is you're saying fine tuning is supposed to be ) means anything different to the appearance of a flat Earth.
Both have no scientific support.
They have that much in common.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I did not miss it, I left it out on purpose.

I just got you to quote a Nobel prize winner... confirming what I have been saying for 5 years.

I have made that very statement to you a hundred times over the last 5 years...

You just acknowledged that a Nobel prize winner states there is an appearance of fine tuning.

For 5-7 years you said no scientists say there is an appearance of fine tuning.

Well guess what... you just ate shit.

It's no surprise it would be troubling to a scientist that an answer may not be forthcoming to a scientific question .
You read all sorts of weird things like creators designers magic and woo into that, for no good reason.

You like what scientists say so much listen to Hawking. The G word for designer is Gravity. What's your problem with that.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Note... you lied again.

creationists are not saying all constants appear fined tuned.

Well if one constant doesn't appear fined tuned then none do.
If one doesn't need to be, none of them do. duh

Constants with the appearance of fine tuning that don't need fine tuning kinda defeats your now even more silly, as if that were possible, position anyway .