Science does not appeal to authority. If you think otherwise then you don't know what science is. I may not have the skills needed to judge everything Weinberg said, but I have enough skill to tell the difference between a scientific theory (that might be wrong) which has passed the scrutiny of peer-review, and sheer speculation which has not. So far you have only presented sheer speculation with no shred of scientific truth in it. You have never been able to show us a link from a peer-reviewed journal. I repeat, write down an equation and then we have something concrete to discuss.
If the X and Y chromosomes are the right way of reproduction, and they produce the 1:1 ratio at birth, then why did God make the B chromosome which messes everything up?
Why did God do this, why did God do that... Why do these people think they could understand God's reasoning? They don't even know their own mind, yet they think they could understand the intelligence of one who created the Universe? Reminds me of children who continually ask their parents, but why, but why, but why... How about this? Create something from absolutely nothing, then explain how you did it to others...
If something is "all messed up", the bible is very specific as to who the "messer upper" is, and for the bible ignorant, it ain't God.
Thank you for providing the best argument against the ID theory. You're perfectly right. All this design nonsense must've been created by the devil to confuse us and make us question our faith in God. We don't even know our own mind. How can we understand the intelligence of one who created the Universe? Any "design" we see are simply reflections of our own mind, not God's.
O.k. Before I lecture you on the the science regarding the cosmological constant and prove you can do nothing but rely on authority for your counter argument. I will also straighten you out on the use of authority in science. Prove that the speed of light is constant and always has been. Prove fingerprints are unique. This list can go on. ---------- Leonard Susskind said http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html Weinberg's argument, which is clearly stated in his general audience book Dreams of a Final Theory is not that the cosmological constant has to be smaller than the limit from galaxy formation. If it were, then Smolin would be correct: the Anthropic Principle doesn't add much to the observed fact that galaxies exist. What Weinberg argued was that if the Anthropic Principle is correct, then the cosmological constant will probably not be much smaller than the galaxy formation limit. Weinberg was just expressing the common sense opinion that if anthropics is the only reason the cosmological constant is small, then it is unlikely that it will be orders of magnitude smaller than the anthropic limit. Was it a prediction that could be proved wrong? Most people thought so. Just about everyone I know was certain that the cosmological constant was exactly zero.
well, you first suggested that 1:1 was an inefficient design, and therefore more evidence against the existence of a Designer. You then went on to explain how 1:1 is predicted by evolution and therefore more proof of its validity. Evolution is presented as the most efficient of biological processes. So which is it? Is 1:1 Efficient or Not? I'd think evolution should predict more Males ... Why should natural selection limited the number of choices a female has? Question; is 1:1 pretty universal amongst all organisms? (feel free to label me an idiot ... it adds to the enjoyment when slaughtering people in arguments)