<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
LOL. You're such a loser.. Can't address the substance and can't handle what's actually being said, so you troll out the same old debunked vids and pretend they can mean something they don't and can't . Science just doesn't give any support for your magic man maker no matter how many silly things you do.
the only thing debunked is your intelligence. You have said nothing truthful and nothing backed up by a scientist. just because space is not hospitable to life does not mean the universe is not finely tuned for life. Dawkins in the pied piper of atheism... he just told you scientists say the universe appears fine tune for life. You can not debunk that because penrose just told you also... and if you need detail... i provided penrose detail to you in the past. I also provided scores of other scientists telling you the same thing. you stu are the troll... I present the science.
It is the universe which is not hospitable to life not 'space'. If the universe is going to be described as finely tuned, then although life is possible, it is finely tuned to be lethal towards it and everything else. Including itself. Your trouble is you can't follow through. The only detail you've provided is by the making of one false assertion after another, as you do above. It means nothing, other than you're being fundamentally dishonest. Dawkins's video doesn't support what you assert. He asks how is a suggestion of fine tuning explained, and then he debunks the different fine tuning assertions. Nor is Penrose saying what you falsely assert. Relying entirely on an edited video, done purposely to give the wrong impression and to construct false assertions about what he does say, is again just you being fundamentally dishonest. Penrose was explaining in that lecture how talk of odds against are dismissed anyway by a cyclic universe theory. Until you can properly address the substance of what is actually being said, endlessly repeating the same falsehoods entitles you to be a sufferer of Einstein's definition of insanity; doing the same [wrong in your case] thing over and over again and expecting different results. Insanity is all you've managed to present.
your completely deceitful. Luckily all anyone has to do is watch the videos. 2. I presented penrose's paper in which he presented the science... completely supporting the statement that the universe is incredibly fine tuned. And further video evidence 1. Again your brain must be debunked... Dawkins says scientists say the universe appears fine tuned... and then explains the reasons for the appear of fine tuning. He discounts God, he he suggests a multiverse, and he then states, weinberg would say we are waiting for science to discover a complete solution which explains everything. And then he discusses another scientists viewpoint. (all explanations for the fine tuning are speculative)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robin_collins/design.html The most impressive case of fine-tuning for life is that of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is a term in Einstein's equation of general relativity that, when positive, acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. If it were too large, space would expand so rapidly that galaxies and stars could not form, and if too small, the universe would collapse before life could evolve. In today's physics, it is taken to correspond to the energy density of empty space. The fine-tuning for life of the cosmological constant is estimated to be at least one part in 10^53, that is, one part in a one hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. To get an idea of how precise this is, it would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the earth from outer space, and hitting a bull's-eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter, less than the size of an atom! Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a critic of fine-tuning, himself admits that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant is highly impressive (2001, p. 67; also, see Collins, 2003). Further examples of the fine-tuning for life of the fundamental constants of physics can also be given, such as that of mass difference between the neutron and the proton. If, for example, the mass of the neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40; Collins, 2003). Other Types of Fine-Tuning for Life Two other types of fine-tuning should be mentioned. One is that of the initial conditions of the universe, which refers to the fact that the initial distribution of mass-energy--as measured by entropy--must fall within an exceedingly narrow range for (intelligent) life to occur. According to Roger Penrose, one of Britain's leading theoretical physicists, "In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes" (Penrose, 1989, p. 343). How tiny is this volume? According to Penrose, if we let x =10^123, the volume of phase space would be about 1/10x of the entire volume. (p. 343). (Phase space is the space that physicists use to measure the various possible configurations of mass-energy of a system.) This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton given the entire visible universe were a dart board! Finally, in his book Nature's Destiny, biochemist Michael Denton extensively discusses various higher-level features of the natural world, such as the many unique properties of carbon, oxygen, water, and the electromagnetic spectrum, that appear optimally adjusted for the existence of complex biochemical systems (1988, p. 300).
http://old.richarddawkins.net/artic...s-universe-s-fine-tuning-difficult-to-explain Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain Outspoken evangelical geneticist Francis Collins revealed that combative atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to him during a conversation that the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter is the fine-tuning of the universe. âIf they (constants in the universe) were set at a value that was just a tiny bit different, one part in a billion, the whole thing wouldnât work anymore,â said Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, during the 31st Annual Christian Scholarsâ Conference at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. These constants regarding the behavior of matter and energy â such as strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and the speed of light â have to be precisely right during the Big Bang for life as we know it to exist. âTo get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability,â said the world renowned scientist. âThat forces a conclusion. If you are an atheist, either it is just a lucky break and the odds are so remote, or you have to go to this multiverse hypothesis, which says that there must be almost an infinite number of parallel universes that have different values of those constants,â explained Collins to Christian scholars of various disciplines in the audience. âAnd of course we are here and so we must have won the lottery, we must be in the one where everything worked.â There are some serious scientists in the world, however, such as English theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who believe in the multiverse hypothesis.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/no-design.html "Robin Collins offers three design arguments, one appealing to the existence of intelligent life and the fine-tuning upon which that life depends, one appealing to the beauty of the laws of physics, and one appealing to the intelligibility of the universe. It's not completely clear what the conclusions of these arguments are. Sometimes Collins seems to be arguing for theism--for the hypothesis that an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect person created our universe. Other times he seems to be arguing for a much less specific hypothesis, one stating simply that a transcendent intelligent being (of some sort) designed our universe. ........I conclude that none of Collins' three arguments is convincing. Each understates the evidence in a way that makes what we know about some topic appear to favor theism more than it really does. " why didn't you link that too?
....merely begs the question, if the universe needed a tuner, who or what is needed to tune the tuner.
Penrose has never published any scientific paper supporting the statement that 'the universe is incredibly fine tuned'. Nor has anyone else. So in fact you have presented no such thing. So what. The earth appears flat.