Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

[stu]

Quote from jem:

The non troll fact is your quote (not that you cited it) is appraently responding to the concept of our universe being finely tuned. It is possible there are infinite multiple universes or a landscape for our own universe in which the constants change...

but this is what hawking said is his paper in 2006 which I just quoted just above.
---
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 cosmology’s 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 tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency....
---
See that Stu... Hawking stated it for you....

---
In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency... or....
it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
----

In summary


Our universe looks carefully tuned by an outside agency or you invoke eternal inflation. (which if you study means you speculate on a multiverse.) Hawking does not like the bottom up approach coupled with inflation... because it means all outcomes are possible...

so he postulates...

a multiverse with a "top down" approach.

But once again we must remind elitetrader trolls that the multiverse is untested, unobserved and probably unverifiable.

So if you only wish to deal with facts... the one universe we know about...

one must "postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency".

Let's try again...

the quote you've posted attributed to Stephen Hawking from his Book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED.
The quote had excluded from it, this crucial part in explanation about fundamental physical constants

• " it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe."

Hawking has constants as values that must be fined tuned thrown down the pan in 1988, simply because it is possible any or all of them can vary within a single universe.
That also does away at a stroke with the false choice of multiverse or fine tuning assertion.

All your cut & past quotes have been edited or selected out of context in one way or another to misrepresent what's actually being said. Just as the ones above.
But you keep posting them without seemingly comprehending that copying quotes off of religious websites is not a good way to understand anything in the first place - especially science.



That was my measured response, so in addition I'd just like to add how much of a clueless prick you must be to keep trolling out so much theistic pseudoscientific horseshit.
Thankyou.

 

[Trader666]

Yeah, like the astronomical improbability that someone as STUpid as you is still in the gene pool.

Quote from stu:

...astronomical improbabilities happen every day...

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

Yeah, like the astronomical improbability that someone as STUpid as you is still in the gene pool.

 

[Trader666]

This from the mental weakling who's so STUpid that he got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS.

Keep deluding yourself

Quote from stu:

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Let's try again...

the quote you've posted attributed to Stephen Hawking from his Book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED.
The quote had excluded from it, this crucial part in explanation about fundamental physical constants

• " it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe."

Hawking has constants as values that must be fined tuned thrown down the pan in 1988, simply because it is possible any or all of them can vary within a single universe.
That also does away at a stroke with the false choice of multiverse or fine tuning assertion.

All your cut & past quotes have been edited or selected out of context in one way or another to misrepresent what's actually being said. Just as the ones above.
But you keep posting them without seemingly comprehending that copying quotes off of religious websites is not a good way to understand anything in the first place - especially science.



That was my measured response, so in addition I'd just like to add how much of a clueless prick you must be to keep trolling out so much theistic pseudoscientific horseshit.
Thankyou.

You are a fool and a troll.

1. your statement does not mean anything but that Hawking speculates the constants could change in 1988.. now cite me to the page so I can look it up.

But the real question still is... does science have any proof the cosmological constant changes in our universe... or say any of the other constants mentioned by Rees? No... you are citing speculation to combat the conclusion of fine tuning.

Plus and this is really the point.....

2. I just gave you Hawkings writing from 2006. I not only cited to the paper... I linked to it. That is not cut and paste... that is the paper itself --- you lying troll. Try being truthful for once.


That is the science from the scientist. He tells you plainly our universe appears finely tuned. He speculates it could appear that way because of a multiverse. That is the bottom line. If you wish to call him religious be my guest.

 

[Trader666]

STUpid "thinks" there's evidence that the fine-structure constant varies but he didn't even get the name right, let alone the facts.

Recent observations evidence a fundamental physical constant, known as the fine structure alpha constant, the electromagnetic force, varying throughout the universe.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3338075&#post3338075

Quote from jem:

But the real question still is... does science have any proof the cosmological constant changes in our universe... or say any of the other constants mentioned by Rees? No... you are citing speculation to combat the conclusion of fine tuning.

 

[jem]

The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.

From Hawkings most recent book.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

Which confirms the thinking in his 2006 paper I linked to.

Summary..

Extreme fine tuning or multiverse.
=
Tuner or you can believe in an unseen, probably unverifiable idea to counter the evidence of a Tuner.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

You (stuPID) are a fool and a troll.

Ditto

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:
Ditto

Head.

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:
This from the mental weakling who's so STUpid that he got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS.

STUpid "thinks" there's evidence that the fine-structure constant varies but he didn't even get the name right, let alone the facts.

Quote from Trader666:
Keep deluding yourself

....because obviously you've nothing else.