Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

Quote from jem:
by the way the fine tuning of the cosmological constant and penrose explanations... are science... you troll.
More...
by the way a bible freak commenting on what he thinks Penrose is merely suggesting ...is not science... you big fat troll.:p

Quote from jem:
your ignorance must be comforting..

Those imagined areas of space... are unobserved and unproven...
they are a reference to what Susskind calls the landscape...

here is more for your education...


blah...blah...blah...blah...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
More...
Let's try that again sparky...

One of those top Nobel prize winning scientists you always like to mention and then completely misrepresent in the name of Creator Jesus, is telling you 1 universe, multiverses not necessary, when those so called designer(s) are black holes.

So tell me if you can manage to get your IQ even up to room temperature, why in response to that have you so dramatically veered off course yet again with a newspaper article trying to criticize Susskind's multiverses, which you want to remain the way they are anyway, because you think that gives your Jesus God creator thing a hope in hell.

Are you aiming to reach a record for the number of self-contradictiory red-herrings you can make in any one post ?
 
This from the lying ignoranus who seems to imagine that by pretending his brain farts are mine, I'll stop posting links that expose his colossal STUpidity :p

Anyone can see in 5 seconds by going to the link that you know less about science than many children do.
Quote from STUpid:
Quote from Trader666:

This from the ignoranus who got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS :p
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513
More...
This from the bewildered half-wit who seems to imagine repeatedly linking to his previous brain farts will somehow fix them.
More...
 
Quote from stu:

by the way a bible freak commenting on what he thinks Penrose is merely suggesting ...is not science... you big fat troll.:p


Let's try that again sparky...

One of those top Nobel prize winning scientists you always like to mention and then completely misrepresent in the name of Creator Jesus, is telling you 1 universe, multiverses not necessary, when those so called designer(s) are black holes.

So tell me if you can manage to get your IQ even up to room temperature, why in response to that have you so dramatically veered off course yet again with a newspaper article trying to criticize Susskind's multiverses, which you want to remain the way they are anyway, because you think that gives your Jesus God creator thing a hope in hell.

Are you aiming to reach a record for the number of self-contradictiory red-herrings you can make in any one post ?
More...

You are ignorant. I just gave you the subject matter on a silver platter and you still do not get it. You are being confused by the nomenclature instead of looking at the science.

For countering the appearance of fine tuning of the constants... one Universe with (completely speculative) areas subject to different fundamental constants is the same as a (completely speculative) multiverse.

The key speculative part is the the idea that there are almost infinite other universes or infinite other area of space subject to different constants.

In summary

Science would need to find areas (whether you define them as being in our universe or separate universes) which are subject to other fundamentals constants to counter the appearance of fine tuning.

So keep trying troll.
 
Stu troll... this is science regardless of how much you hate it.


Quote from jem:

like I said you can lead these atheist trolls to science but you cant make them think.

they see numbers like this and they want to talk about grey hairs.

Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."


This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000,

but instead:

1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form...

or


Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment."

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

or
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

Anyone can see in 5 seconds by going to the link that you know less about science than many children do.
More...
That'll be what you wish anyone can see.
What can actually be seen is that you can’t properly discuss a point, so it's a case of just keep regurgitating links to the same old nonsense you've already come out with.
Pathetic.
 
Quote from jem:

Stu troll... this is science regardless of how much you hate it.
More...
Jem fat troll...no it isn't science however much you wish it was by reposting it.
You should get a room with TraderTroll to compare the sameness in both of your dead in the water methods of non-argument.
 
Quote from jem:

You are ignorant. I just gave you the subject matter on a silver platter and you still do not get it. You are being confused by the nomenclature instead of looking at the science.

For countering the appearance of fine tuning of the constants... one Universe with (completely speculative) areas subject to different fundamental constants is the same as a (completely speculative) multiverse.

The key speculative part is the the idea that there are almost infinite other universes or infinite other area of space subject to different constants.

In summary

Science would need to find areas (whether you define them as being in our universe or separate universes) which are subject to other fundamentals constants to counter the appearance of fine tuning.

So keep trying troll.
More...

Do you think saying troll all the time somehow means you must be right or something?
Just because you want everything to be a certain way so you think they add some support to your own fantasies, does not make them so.

The only reference to infinite other areas of space is the one you've made.

  • In any such picture, in which the universe contains many parts with different values for what we call the constants of nature, there would be no difficulty in understanding why these constants take values favorable to intelligent life. There would be a vast number of big bangs in which the constants of nature take values unfavorable for life, and many fewer where life is possible. You don't have to invoke a benevolent designer to explain why we are in one of the parts of the universe where life is possible: in all the other parts of the universe there is no one to raise the question.

You're the one insisting Nobel prize winners are the people to listen to. Here one of the very best laureates in his very own area of expertise, is explaining how there is no need for multiverses, no need for infinite anything, and no need for a creator.

You made your bed, you’ll have to lie in it. As well as lie from it… evidently.
 
Quote from stu:

Do you think saying troll all the time somehow means you must be right or something?
Just because you want everything to be a certain way so you think they add some support to your own fantasies, does not make them so.

The only reference to infinite other areas of space is the one you've made.

  • In any such picture, in which the universe contains many parts with different values for what we call the constants of nature, there would be no difficulty in understanding why these constants take values favorable to intelligent life. There would be a vast number of big bangs in which the constants of nature take values unfavorable for life, and many fewer where life is possible. You don't have to invoke a benevolent designer to explain why we are in one of the parts of the universe where life is possible: in all the other parts of the universe there is no one to raise the question.

You're the one insisting Nobel prize winners are the people to listen to. Here one of the very best laureates in his very own area of expertise, is explaining how there is no need for multiverses, no need for infinite anything, and no need for a creator.

You made your bed, you’ll have to lie in it. As well as lie from it… evidently.
More...

troll...

What do you think a vast number of big bangs leading to "many parts with different values for what we call the constants of nature means"

You do not get it... there are no other known areas in our universe with different constants... just as there are no other known universes. it does not matter if you say they are part of one universe or many.

you are a troll or really stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top