I would also like to emphasize nobel prize winner Steven wienberg cited the Cardinal for his understanding that trying to explain away the evidence for design by arguing chance or necessity is an abdication of human intelligence. Thats basically a nobel prize winning scientists saying that those of you who think the universe got here by random chance or even directed evolution manifest and abdication of human intelligence. Nobel prize winner vs Stu and the other et atheists. I go with the nobel prize winner. You think we got here by chance -- a nobel prize winner says you manifest an abdication of intelligence. And weinberg is a professed anti religion person.
O.K.- you go with less than 1% of the Nobel winners and will follow the other 99%. It would follow the same logic as your religious beliefs: follow one and ignore the dozen or more other hypothsies.
Seriously jem, just what the hell are you talking about now? Richard Dawkins? Do you mean Stephen Hawkins? You're such a prat. Now you have Steven Weinberg suggesting " life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator" and a Cardinal (a title now synonymous with pedophilia) claiming "immanent design evident in nature is real"; and you don't see the glaring contradiction !? So what happened to Susskind all of a sudden. You give up trying to misrepresent him ? "Appears designed" does not mean intelligently designed. What is it that you cannot understand about the word 'design' . Design does not mean intelligent design? No one can be that thick. Then you finish confirming no need for any supernatural imaginary magic creator anyway. Thereby conceding the complete opposite to what you are prattling on about. Getting your knickers in a twist over Susskind yet again , now Weinberg, Dawkins or Hawkins, you don't seem to know which is which, trying to pretend they are suggesting the opposite to what they say. Is this really how religion teaches you about things like truth. To act like a complete moron. Or can you manage by yourself ?
....Who says no need for a creator, you're going with that. Fine That's progress. Pat yourself on the back (if you can work out where your back is).
you are not well read nor are being honest about my argument. try again. Dawkins. I have always said appears designed. You are always twisting my statements. give up you are manifesting an abdication of intelligence.
Let's face it jem, your pathetic arguments boil down to black is white and you cannot even begin to coherently substantiate your ridiculous position. Why not learn a little good grace and stop trying to defend your nonsensical indefensible statements . You've been all around the houses with false references , misquotes and wrong detail, eventually in desparation grabbing for the coat tails of one Nobel physicist, who is saying before anything else, he doesn't go with the benevolent creator idea. Itâs plain what is dishonest about you.
Whether there is a Creator or not, none can call He/She/It "Benevolent". Five mass extinctions in our planets history so far and the 'species created in He/She/It's own image' in the midst of creating the sixth. In addition to this, all of the 'chosen species' members except approxiamately 144,000 VIRGIN MALES are going to be cast into eternal damnation just for being born!! That's according to the Bible of course. Call this Creator stupid, drunk or both but certainly not 'benevolent'.