Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

[Ricter]

Quote from killthesunshine:

yes i do,; belief and PROOF are not the same thing. Belief is just an IDEA that pops into your head, you have lots of them every day. (they [did] serve to help survival, but as often as not YOU GET EATEN anyway because YOUR BELIEF IS WRONG LOL )

REASON applies some rulz to your thinking help shift thru the BULLSHIT hehe

You begin by assuming the God feeling is a belief. Is joy a belief?

 

[maxpi]

drdino.com

That guy gets his facts straight and "scientists" find other ways to shit on him... we could reduce global warming a lot if we could get "scientists" to stop shitting on people so much...

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from Ricter:

You begin by assuming the God feeling is a belief. Is joy a belief?

joy is a feeling. are aliens actually sucking a schizo's brainwaves?

Or would you like a little more PROOF of that?

 

[killthesunshine]

i hear nothing but.... CRICKETS chirp chirp

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Nobel prize winning physicists understand the numbers And they have explained that given the starting parameters the chance of all the constants being just right for life in our universe is against all odds, it can be scientifically ruled out as luck. It would be like winning powerball every day for millions and billions of years.

Almost all the scientists I have quoted are atheists and working at big universities.

We are talking about numbers with so many zeros we cant comprehend them. and numbers raised to the 500th.

All any of that compulsive ignorance of yours would show, is that the universe won the powerball.
What lottery did your "Creator" not win? The odds against it must be impossible.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

All any of that compulsive ignorance of yours would show, is that the universe won the powerball.
What lottery did your "Creator" not win? The odds against it must be impossible.

So now that I have produced Dawkins comments... you are still sticking to your reckless ignorance about the fine tunings of the universe.

I produce nobel prize winners and you say they do not understand the numbers. Don't you realize how ignorant you are.

Here let me get a scientist to explain it to you again.



Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

[jem]

Quote from killthesunshine:

it behooves those making the claim to prove there IS a god. you have amassed what you could find and presented your evidence here, and you have FAILED miserably. your nothing but a sore looser

You make the claim there is no God and then you say someone else has the burden to prove there is.

Where did you learn your logic? Kids in nursery school manifest a better understanding of the burden of proof.

Don't you et atheists get tried of playing the fools who purposely close their eyes to science and logic.
I can see you and stu putting your hands over your ears and saying to top physicists... I can't hear you.


Let me help you.... a logical person would say "I see no proof of God so if you wish for be to believe you will first have to produce some evidence and then I will have to weigh it. "

A logical non believing scientist does say... there are interesting observations in the field of physics which make it look like our universe is finely tuned... and therefore needs a tuner... but I reserve judgment because there could be trillions and trillions of other universes. (or some other explanation which we have not come across yet.)

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

So now that I have produced Dawkins comments... you are still sticking to your reckless ignorance about the fine tunings of the universe.

I produce nobel prize winners and you say they do not understand the numbers. Don't you realize how ignorant you are.

Here let me get a scientist to explain it to you again.



Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

No, I said you clearly don't understand what you are saying would mean.
Throwing the word Nobel and "top scientists" and Dawkins into the mix every time, is not making your comments any less than ignorant. All you have there is an astronomer that doesn't like multiverses.

Just ask yourself...if the universe does need a tuner, what tuned the tuner?

sheesh... just why are you so desperate for a creator other than the universe itself?

 

[Index piker]

Quote from stu:



sheesh... just why are you so desperate for a creator other than the universe itself?

Sheesh why are you so desperate to deny a creator and accept the universe without scrutiny.

 

[stu]

Quote from Index piker:

Sheesh why are you so desperate to deny a creator and accept the universe without scrutiny.

Why would you want to be so quick to try and create a false argument just from loaded presuppositions?
I can assure you going by his record, Jem can make enough mess of a reply without your help.