Not to get into the middle of this ontological argument, but the Bible documents that Moses married an Ethiopian. Now, I could be wrong here, but Ethiopian and white do not exactly go together. So does that not invalidate the interracial argument right there? Just sayin.
have you been caught lying about what another scientist is telling you?no intelligent design: Martin Rees: I've got no religious beliefs at all Another point is if you are teaching Muslim sixth formers in a school and you tell them they can't have their God and Darwin, there is a risk they will choose their God and be lost to science. So those are two respects where I would disagree with the emphasis of the professional atheists, as it were. IS: Do you see an importance in trying to diffuse some of the conflict that sometimes gets stoked up between science and religion? MR: I think they can co-exist. They are very different activities. Obviously one opposes Creationism and such-like, but it's fairly clear that there are some scientists for whom religion is important and most of us for whom it isn't, but again I think they can be co-existent. IS: What is your take on how schools should deal with Creationism and Intelligent Design? MR: I have no unconventional views on this at all. IS: Should they be taught within the religious aspects of a curriculum, or do they have a place in the science curriculum? MR: Science teachers have to address them if they are brought up, but I am rather opposed to faith schools in general. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview
how dense are you no thinker? I have been telling I am presenting science not religion. When you quote Rees saying he has no religion at all... you make my point. The appearance of fine tuning in our universe has been observed by our top scientists.... many of whom are atheist or agnostic. How you explain the fine tunings... that is where faith and speculation may come into play.
That argument never got started. We told no thinker that it was ridiculous that he was always pointing out the outlier nut cases.
no. you are taking a gap in our knowledge and sticking your god in it even though the people you use as your evidence directly say you are wrong. you are making up falsehoods about what you are reading in a dishonest attempt to find a gap where you can say "god did it". this video has many of the people you quote. you seem to not be able to comprehend what they write. can you find a way to lie about what they say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuxgdkqvuRE The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively sceptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god. This is a compilation of some of the best examples of such individuals with their thoughts on the divine. They include in order of appearance: Professor Stephen Hawking is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, and was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years. Lord Martin Rees is the Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010. Dr Sam Harris is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason. He holds a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA, and a BA in philosophy from Stanford University. Professor Richard Feynman was an American physicist who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. Professor Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT and well known as one of the fathers of modern linguistics. Stephen Fry is an English actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet, comedian, television presenter and film director. Professor Leonard Susskind is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory. Sir Bertrand Russell was an English philosopher who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. Dr Richard Carrier is an American historian who received his PhD in ancient history from Columbia University. Sir David Attenborough is a broadcaster and naturalist. He studied Natural Sciences at Cambridge, and his distinguished career in broadcasting now spans more than 50 years. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History and Visiting Research Scientist and Lecturer at Princeton University. He attended Harvard College (B.A), University of Texas (M.A.) and Columbia University (M.Phil.), (Ph.D.). Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran is a neuroscientist, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, and Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Neurosciences Graduate Program at the University of California, San Diego. He obtained his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge.
How many times do I have to educate you. Hawking starts the video off and states M theory does not disprove God.... but eliminates the need for him. Do you know what Hawking is referencing? He is referencing Susskind's work in which Susskind used to Polchinsky's 10 to the 500 solutions to speculate (guess) there could be almost infinite universes. We have already discussed this - I will post the review of suskinds book again. The next scientist on your list is Rees. Rees... wrote the six numbers book. He was one of the guys who pointed out the careful fine tunings.
How many times do I have to educate you. Hawking starts the video off and states M theory does not disprove God.... but eliminates the need for him. Do you know what Hawking is referencing? He is referencing Susskind's work which Susskind used M theory calculations by Polchinsky to (guess) there could be almost infinite universes. I will post a NYT review next... Note the second guy on your list is Rees... he wrote the 6 numbers book. Do you see how ignorant you are No thinker... you are citing scientists who state the universe appears designed. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/b...w/15powell.html What troubles Susskind is an intelligent design argument considerably more vexing than the anti-evolution grumblings recently on trial in Dover, Pa. Biologists can point to unambiguous evidence that evolution truly does happen and that it can account for many otherwise inexplicable aspects of how organisms function. For those who take a more cosmic perspective, however, the appearance of design is not so simply refuted. If gravity were slightly stronger than it is, for instance, stars would burn out quickly and collapse into black holes; if gravity were a touch weaker, stars would never have formed in the first place. The same holds true for pretty much every fundamental property of the forces and particles that make up the universe. Change any one of them and life would not be possible. To the creationist, this cosmic comity is evidence of the glory of God. To the scientist, it is an embarrassing reminder of our ignorance about the origin of physical law. Until recently, most physicists took it on faith that as they refined their theories and upgraded their experiments they would eventually expose a set of underlying rules requiring the universe to be this way and this way only. In "A Brief History of Time," Stephen Hawking recalled Albert Einstein's question "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" before replying that, judging from the latest ideas in physics, God "had no freedom at all." Like many leading physicists at the time, Hawking believed that scientists were closing in on nature's essential rules - the ones that even God must obey - and that string theory was leading them on a likely path to enlightenment. Although string theory resists translation into ordinary language, its central conceit boils down to this: All the different particles and forces in the universe are composed of wriggling strands of energy whose properties depend solely on the mode of their vibration. Understand the properties of those strands, the thinking once went, and you will understand why the universe is the way it is. Recent work, most notably by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has dashed that hope. The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10500, give or take a few trillion. Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse."
i think you are fos and make everything up, really, do you have anything besides BS to offer that all of scripture is a myth? if you think i said i have "indisputable" please show me where i said it ... otherwise, well, i never said that so there ya go, do you have anything else to offer i never said? i seem to remember admonishing you for paying attention and following along just a few posts ago and here we go again, no offense but what's wrong with you? i have written thousand of words, you are correct, if you have not gotten anything out of them that is a reflection on you i'm still waiting to have a reasonable conversation, for example you'll distract from the point i'm making, then i point it out you are doing that, and you say i'm babbling and then go on to say whatever else you want to, attention deficit disorder doesn't even start to explain it!
i agree! if you are not able to understand what i am saying, please point out where specifically you are confused and i will explain calling an articulate post "babbling" only serves to show everyone your grade level of English comprehension which clearly can be challenged by any intelligent teenager lol ... ignore whoever you want! please hurry up actually, then at least i can converse with reasonable people