What is wrong with you. There is no science to support what Collins says about fine tuning. He is not pretending there is. You're the one doing that.
You can lead an et atheist to science but you can't make him think. And with Stu you can't even stop him from lying a few weeks after he learns to facts to the contrary. Below you will see again --- the pied piper of atheists explain where science is on this issue. And you will see Penrose show you fine tuning.
There is no science to support what Collins says about fine tuning. He is not pretending there is. You're the one doing that. Regurgitating vids like a retard in full denial, which have already been refuted as being in any way supportive of your dumb argument, won't change that fact. There is no science anywhere to confirm any need for fine tuning.
Stu So you see Penrose there telling you about fine tuning. And you see Dawkins explaining the top physicists have models which indicate the appearance of strong fine tuning and you still lie and distort. What is wrong with you Stu, why do atheists like you deny current science?
You are always trying to assert Penrose is providing scientific information substantiating an appearance of fine tuning. He does no such thing. Neither does Collins. He is NOT providing or explaining any science which elaborates on an appearance of fine tuning. There is science which elaborates on the appearance of a flat earth. There is no science correspondingly which applies to so called fine tuning. Like there is no science to do with God the Imaginary Knob Twiddling Fine Tuner Sky Dude. What is there to deny other than your silly assertion? The inclination to grab at any sound bite, part information, or a few words of Dawkins Penrose or Collins, then contort or alter them to believe things that can't be true, and repeat them over and over like a demented parrot while shouting liar at everything, will be the same unreasoning approach which helps you find religion so plausible. Hope that helps.
Science discovers there are fundamental physical constants. Science also finds the values of those constants fall within an extremely tight range. One suggestion is if the values were any different, there would be no universe or no matter in the universe. That suggestion has no science to back it up. Another suggestion, a religious suggestion, is that an all powerful interferer called God had to have fine tuned those values for them to come about. That is in the realms of fantasy, not reason not science. Collins, Penrose, Dawkins etc., do not state there is any science that supports either the suggestion or the fantasy. Just because they are scientists and they mention words like 'fine tuning', or the even the word probability, obviously doesn't mean they must be supporting or confirming or producing science for a cosmological conjurer, as your ridiculous argument would have it.
You are capable of getting it... you just do not wish to accept the science. Many top scientists confirm their science says our universe appears incredibly fine tuned. As I have said science is trying to find a "non-tuner" explanation. They have been looking for the TOE or the Theory of Everything for a long time. In absence of a TOE... some speculate there could be almost infinite universes. I have been giving you science on a platter for more than 5 years. At first you denied and lied. Then you pretended I was not giving accurate quotes. Then you called me a liar. Then you said the scientists were presenting philosophy. Now you misread plain English. But... you are now just one step away. You will soon accept what it means.
Here is some background... from Hoyle to Weinberg... scientists have made major discoveries by predicting. (Invoking the anthropic principle) Many started to suspect fine tuning... and then they built models which confirmed it. Here is some background on the anthropic principle. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ncsuh_5l6Hw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This is the beginning of the science behind the fine tuning. It is far more significant than you have ever allowed yourself to understand Stu. more backgroundfrom wikipedia... In the 1950s, Hoyle was the leader of a group of very talented experimental and theoretical physicists; with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge, and Geoffrey Burbidge. This group realized the basic ideas of how all the chemical elements in our Universe were manufactured, with this now being a field called nucleosynthesis. Famously, in 1957, this group produced the cornerstone B²FH paper (known for the initials of the four authors) in which the field of nucleosynthesis was defined and the large picture solved. An early paper of Hoyle's made an interesting use of the anthropic principle. In trying to work out the routes of stellar nucleosynthesis, he observed that one particular nuclear reaction, the triple-alpha process, which generates carbon, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific resonance energy for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon-based life-forms of any kind to exist, demonstrated that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, he made a prediction of the energy levels in the carbon nucleus that was later borne out by experiment. These energy levels, while needed to produce carbon in large quantities, were statistically very unlikely. Hoyle later wrote: â Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. â âFred Hoyle, [5] His co-worker William Alfred Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyleâs original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out.[6] Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyleâs pioneering efforts: â The concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first established by Hoyle in 1946. This provided a way to explain the existence of elements heavier than helium in the universe, basically by showing that critical elements such as carbon could be generated in stars and then incorporated in other stars and planets when that star "dies". The new stars formed now start off with these heavier elements and even heavier elements are formed from them. Hoyle theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by supernovas, the giant explosions which occasionally occur throughout the universe, whose temperatures and pressures would be required to create such elements.
That the laws of physics work a certain way within a narrow range of values is the science. That those values can't come about by the laws of physics, is not science, and there is no science anywhere, which even suggests anything of the sort. You are still hopelessly trying to support a flawed non scientific assertion called fine tuning, off the back of what is understood through scientific knowledge and observation. It always makes me laugh how you talk so ignorantly whilst at the same time destroying your silly claim from the links you provide yourself lol! So this is how carbon comes about, no need for "fine tuning" " The concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first established by Hoyle in 1946. This provided a way to explain the existence of elements heavier than helium in the universe, basically by showing that critical elements such as carbon could be generated in stars and then incorporated in other stars and planets when that star "dies". The new stars formed now start off with these heavier elements and even heavier elements are formed from them. Hoyle theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by supernovas, the giant explosions which occasionally occur throughout the universe, whose temperatures and pressures would be required to create such elements." Enormous chaotic super massive explosions and an explanation via the laws of physics, that says, is what it takes. No mention or need of "fine tuning" then. You might try and study the content you post a bit more. Lol! Until then Dream on.