The Fine Tuning of the Universe
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
The standard model is not mathematically self-consistent and is as yet incomplete, which means the numbers you are referring to as fine tunings are not fact at all.
...for the fact!!? Really!!
I asserted as fact! Lol.
Irony just doesn't describe it.
If there is any scientific evidence of a creator, it's gravity.
Get over it. And yourself.
I believe it, the Creator, to be energy. I use a capital C simply out of respect for a power so awesome in nature.The standard model is not mathematically self-consistent and is as yet incomplete, which means the numbers you are referring to as fine tunings are not fact at all.
...for the fact!!? Really!!
I asserted as fact! Lol.
Irony just doesn't describe it.
If there is any scientific evidence of a creator, it's gravity.
Get over it. And yourself.
1. wow... you are confused about science.
no one said it was complete... nor does it need to be to be.
nevertheless the constants are incredibly fined tuned and the tuning was confirmed and validated when CERN used the standard model to predict and then find the higgs boson.
How many articles have I linked for you on this subject? at least 2 dozen over the past 10 years. How many will it take before it seeps into your 1950s science world view?
2. you are also confused about English... yes it is a fact that many top scientists consider this fine tuning to evidence of a Creator or a Multiverse. I have provided you quotes and videos on the subject. The multiverse takes faith as well.
no one said it was complete... nor does it need to be to be.
nevertheless the constants are incredibly fined tuned and the tuning was confirmed and validated when CERN used the standard model to predict and then find the higgs boson.
How many articles have I linked for you on this subject? at least 2 dozen over the past 10 years. How many will it take before it seeps into your 1950s science world view?
2. you are also confused about English... yes it is a fact that many top scientists consider this fine tuning to evidence of a Creator or a Multiverse. I have provided you quotes and videos on the subject. The multiverse takes faith as well.
The standard model is not mathematically self-consistent and is as yet incomplete, which means the numbers you are referring to as fine tunings are not fact at all.
...for the fact!!? Really!!
I asserted as fact! Lol.
Irony just doesn't describe it.
If there is any scientific evidence of a creator, it's gravity.
Get over it. And yourself.
So it turns out as usual your facts are not facts and not even speculation, just bullshit. No change there then.
CERN does not confirm or validate the universe IS fine tuned. Neither does any science, anywhere.
Numbers and values are given, not any fine tuning of them.
It really is way past time for you to stop making such an idiot of yourself. Now that is a fact.
CERN does not confirm or validate the universe IS fine tuned. Neither does any science, anywhere.
Numbers and values are given, not any fine tuning of them.
It really is way past time for you to stop making such an idiot of yourself. Now that is a fact.
Last edited:
Lets not get too warm and fuzzy.Praise be. You may call me STU
I am still not convinced that this Creator thing is totally indifferent to all of creation. I'm not sure about evolution through random chance and mutation without some intervention from the Creator thing. So we have much to debate, friendly I hope. What we can agree on is the whole rewards and punishment in some afterlife is patently ridiculous.
And even less if you were to pick up a science book. And I don't mean that disrespectfully.
If you are really interested to know the scientific evidence for evolution, please consider this excellent book:
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show...16&sr=8-1&keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth
It is an amazing read written by an evolutionary biologist for laypeople such as you and me. I promise you will not be disappointed. It touches on every "concern" you may have, and the evidence is truly compelling. It is not a disparate set of facts, but the building of a very strong and unified case. And, if after reading this book you continue to disagree with the science of evolution (which I am confident you will not), you will be in a better position to debate stu et al because you will see all their cards.
Last edited:
^ I'll give it a try, but I have always had a problem with Dawkins in-particular. He's a smart guy who makes a compelling argument...when he's not being an asshole. If he could ever get past the sarcasm and witty criticism, he'd have a much wider audience. That said, facts are facts and truth is truth so I'll see where it takes me. I'll try to judge the message not the messenger.
I'm very glad to hear it. I don't recall any attitude in the book. I just remember being fascinated throughout. You will not be either bored or disappointed. And when you've read it, please tell me what you think. I would really like to know.