Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Hawking: God did not create Universe

Hawking: God did not create Universe

  1. Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

    Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

    In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: “Did the Universe need a creator?” The answer he gives is a resounding “no”.

    Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.

    “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he finds.
     
  2. What caused gravity, and the laws of physics?
     
  3. �Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    I'ed like to see how he came up with that one.


    :confused:
     
  4. You would likely need some physics background to be able to understand...

    Better yet - read his new book, I'm sure that will give the answers you're looking for.
     
  5. Who created god?
     
  6. Trick question: depends for its answer on how you define God.
     
  7. Precisely.
     
  8. I have a degree in physics.:D
     
  9. man created god.

    "Ignorance of Nature gave birth to gods. Knowledge of Nature is calculated to destroy them."
     
  10. Stephen Hawking should be having this discussion with all the liberal elites who've suddenly become so concerned with religious freedom as it pertains to the mosque debate.
     
  11. Agreed.
     
  12. Agreed.
     
  13. :D Well then!

    I suppose I will just revise my comment to "read the book" LOL
     
  14. THANKS KISSASS. I DIDN'T EXPECT AN APOLOGY.
     
  15. :confused:

    Douchebag.
     
  16. lol:D
     
  17. And that makes it so?
    I mean I know he's a smart guy and all. But how the fuck does he know this for an indisputable fact?
     
  18. Tough day in the markets?
     
  19. Likely the media taking something out of context (shock me). I'm willing to bet that in the book he doesn't explain it as so black and white.

    Comments such as these also help sell a book pretty well.

    That being said, they are powerful words from a very smart man.
     
  20. The important thing to note is that he's smarter than you are and his conclusion is different than yours. I wonder how the smart money would trade that one.
     
  21. Smart money would not play, there will be no final result to evaluate.
     
  22. hawkings has already written on the subject.

    he will probably says the laws are in place - therefore there is no need for God.

    It will be interesting if he argues the universe does not have a beginning or if he claims we now can trace the laws of physics to the instant of the big bang or even before.

    I do not expect that. Because I think we would have heard about it already.
     
  23. God is an abstract. *

    Marx got it right more than a century ago.

    *remarks of someone who was raised CATHOLIC and spent 12 yrs in their educational system

    Also, if they can make a voice synthesizer for Roger Ebert that sounds like his old voice, why can't they get a voice box with a British accent for Hawking?

    I'm just saying.
     
  24. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49U6E220081031?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews


    Less than 2 years ago hawking said this....

    "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he said. "The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

    Hawking is getting old and his mind is probably not what it used to be. You cant say the laws are decreed by God one minute, then say God doesnt exist because of the laws the next minute.
     
  25. That's science. As new facts emerge, opinion changes based on those facts. Most religious followers are so convinced there is a god that facts don't matter.
     
  26. No fact has emerged that said where the laws of gravity or physics come from, thats the problem.
     
  27. No fact has emerged that said where the laws of gravity or physics come from, thats the problem.


    +1
     
  28. Your interpretation of his point is flawed. His point is that, while there may or may not be a god, there is actually no need for one. Stated differently, god is not a necessary condition for the universe to exist.

    I think it's fascinating how you are taking it upon yourself to counter Hawking and setting him straight. I can only imagine his gratitude.
     
  29. Exactly. He stated that God was not necessary to intitiate creation of the universe. It was created because of the particular laws of physics that happen to be in place.

    Besides, universes are a dime-a-dozen. Our universe floats among an infinite number of other universes comprising the mulitiverse. In fact, an infinite number of big bangs are occuring at any given moment giving rise to new universes constantly.

    If any small fraction of universes contain life it means that there are an infinite number of universes that contain life because a fraction of infinity is infinity. Since there are an infinite number of universes that contain life that means there are an infinite number of Earths with only a slight variation between them. So there are an infinite number of copies of you alive at this moment. Every time you make a decision the other you(s) in the mulitiverse make every other possible decision resulting in every possible outcome being realized somewhere.

    When you swerve on the highway to avoid a deer another you hits that deer and is killed, another you hits the deer and survives, another you is thrown from the vehicle and is hit midair by a meteor, another you shits his pants and whistles Dixie, another you hits the accelerator and runs over the deer, another you never even sees the deer and makes it home oblivious to it all.

    Cool ain't it?
     
  30. I see nothing in his writings that claims a god or gods did not create the universe.

    Media context manipulation as usual. Sensationalism once again to sell books.
     
  31. None of those infinate universes exist, including this one. Logically, a universe cannot be created out of nothing. The laws of physics says you cannot have it both ways. Either there is nothing, or there has always been everything. The "nothing" before the big bang is merely the whole of the universe concentrated into a single point in space.

    Yes, there were multiple big bangs, but not from multiple universes, just one. This one universe that never existed experienced an infinate amount of big bangs.
     
  32. Nonsense. All the matter around us is just a condensate of energy. Membranes bump into each other with such unimaginable force that all the energy is converted to matter and badabing you have a point in "space" blasting out a bunch of quasi-matter that condenses into galaxies.

    The non-uniformity of the distribution of matter in the universe is due simply to the ripples on the surface of the membranes that collide, its not a perfect impact. Its not all or nothing.

    Hawking is just pointing out that the mechanism is pretty simple and doesn't require divine intervention.
     


  33. Jejejejejejejejeje,

    Hawking needs some money, be sure and buy a copy of his new book.

    Obviously, if my whole basis is anti-god, then everything must have created itself.


    Jejejejejejejejeje,
     
  34. I think Hawking's losing it.
     
  35. This makes sense. The fact that this universe does not physically exist. Sure it seems like it does, but where is the proof that it exists?

    Its like when you are dreaming and you realize you are in a dream. You can see, touch, taste, smell and hear. But even though you can touch things in your dream, you are not really touching them are you? Its just your mind telling you you are touching it, or tasting or smelling or whatever, although in the dream, it feels real.

    Its quite possible that this is all a kind of more substantial dream, so if thats true, then who is the dreammaker and puts all the rules together? The answer can be only one. God.
     
  36. Its funny because my beliefs do not agree with any organised religion, mostly because i grew up in multicultural areas, and in order to believe one religion is right i would have to believe someone else's religion was wrong. The more i read Stephen Hwkings books, and get a true feeling for the overall size/scope of the universe the more i feel like the guys who believe in the big bang are wrong.

    I believe more adamantly then ever, after reading most of Stephen Hawkings works, that something bigger is at play then what most "scientists" choose to accept/believe.

    What this is, i dont know, but there is obviously something bigger at play, and until i hear a rational explanation i will hold on to my belief.


     
  37. The laws of physics allow a universe to come from nothing.
     

  38. The laws of "REALITY" dont allow anything to come from nothing.... Unless your criss angel.
     
  39. Interesting...hmmmm...maybe my future son-in-law apparent will suddenly experience a "big bang" in his empty head and go from stupid to genius.
     
  40. Finally, The ET Brain Trust has set the world's foremost living theoretical physicist straight and put him in his place:

    You want a rational explanation to dispel a hazy, unarticulated "belief?" I'll tell Steve to get right on it.
     
  41. Where is your reply to my three pages in the thread which you implied i was dodging?

     
  42. Gabfly lol :D
     
  43. Your diatribe did not suggest that you were looking for a reply. Unlike one of my earlier posts where I sought a reply from you but did not get one:

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2940395#post2940395

    And you did not answer the question I asked you in this very thread in my last post. Specifically, do you want a rational explanation to dispel a hazy, unarticulated "belief?" Stated differently, are you looking for a clear answer to a non-question?

    In response to your diatribe in another, unrelated thread to which you refer, you essentially accuse me of being smug and then go on to new heights of your own. There is actually a minor point of agreement between us. I do not doubt that the race card is overplayed at times. And that's not a good thing. However, the antidote is not to ignore racism where it actually exists. The solution to one extreme is rarely the opposite extreme. And for you to think that it is such a negligible issue in the US renders you an inveterate Pollyanna. There is little point in further exchange because neither of us respects the other's opinion. At all.

    Oh, and your reference elsewhere to Central Canada being 95% white? You do realize, of course, that Central Canada is Quebec and Ontario, right?
     
  44. can a deity capable of creating the universe be created from nothing?
     
  45. I guess when you are born so far left of center that you use china as a starting point you could consider ontatio and quebec "central canada" in reference to russia......

    [​IMG]
     
  46. Are you drunk or something, on page 18 of the thread entitled "Overwhelmingly White Media Criticize Conservative Rallies as 'Overwhelmingly White'" and you provided a link. I responded to you with three pages in the thread entitled " "It’s horrifying to imagine kids being proud to be white." — Newsweek, Sept. 14, 200 " get your shit together dude.
     
  47. "Central Canada (sometimes the Central provinces) is a region consisting of Canada's two largest and most populous provinces: Ontario and Quebec. Due to their high populations, Ontario and Quebec have traditionally held a significant amount of political power in Canada, leading to some amount of resentment from other regions of the country. Before Confederation, the term 'Canada' specifically referred to Central Canada. Today, the term "Central Canada" is less often used than the names of the individual provinces.

    Despite its name, Central Canada is only called central due to it being the centre of political power in Canada. It is located entirely in the eastern half of the country..."


    http://www.answers.com/topic/central-canada

    Meanwhile, you have answered neither the question in this thread nor the one to which I referred in my last post.
     
  48. If that was your "response" to my specific question in the other thread (perhaps you should click on the link just to be sure), then I can see why your thinking is muddled. Your "response" was tangential at best, and I'm being kind.

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2940395#post2940395
     
  49. first off you changed which post you asked me to respond to, second off only a retard could consider quebec and ontario central canada, i have never heard a person call it anything besides eastern canada. Once again my only error was wasting time on a fucking lunatic who changes his mind mid stream. Secondly the only question you ever asked was "Do you really believe their premise is not a prop for something...else? Are you really that naive?" So i can answer with a couple simple yes and no answers, no i do not believe it is a prop for anything, and no i am not naieve i am simply a person who actually had friends of various races growing up, i wasnt a by product of some far left white university prof. like you.



     
  50. well... he's marrying your daughter isn't he?
     
  51. No, I did not change which post I asked you to respond to. It was the only post to which I referred IN THIS THREAD. You merely coudn't keep up. I posted only one link in this thread, so I don't see why there should have been any confusion. Your response to another post was another matter. It is not my fault that you cannot distinguish between the two, or that you make haphazard assumptions by which you live. I imagine that's a prevalent fixture in your life. You were too lazy to click on the only ET link I posted in this thread and now you're trying to save face with bluster.

    As for "Central Canada," I did not coin the term. And you are insufficiently educated, in Canada at least, to recognize this fact.
     
  52. you are a troll, and this proves your lunacy.



    This was in response to bugscoe asking you the following:

    How many black people have you interacted with in your life?

    How many have you called your business partner?




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quote from Gabfly1:

    Your first two questions are not worthy of a response. Remember, I live in Central Canada. If you lived in Central Canada, you would not ask such a stupid question.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So in your version of central canada where it includes Ontario and Quebec there are no BLACK PEOPLE?!?!?!?! ARE YOU FUCKING DAFT?!?! Or do you just not leave your house cause the K.k.K. does not permit you? I am visiting my mom in toronto right now i would happily show up to your house and prove to you that there are in fact black people living in ontario.


     
  53. You stupid, stupid man.

    Bugscoe first implied and eventually claimed in another thread that I did not interact with people of other races. I advised him that this was a stupid remark because I live in Central Canada (hint: the actual multicultural melting pot of the country). The implication is OF COURSE I DO, MORON. And you read into my response that I am suggesting there are no black people in Central Canada? You are an idiot without peer. Your own post says so.
     
  54. Fuck off, change the response again, and make up definitions on the fly, i promise i wont waste another sentence on you.

     
  55. Could someone else please chime in here? Is this Hello fellow insane?
     
  56. He's Jem-esque..and he's cornered .. that's probably as near to insane as it gets.
     
  57. God did not create the universe. Hawking created the universe with his physics :D
     
  58. The only reason to create a personal God is personal. We create models of the universe, the best of which is the truth as we know it. God is a poor model. God explains nothing, and is not useful anymore :( Time to move on to better models :D
     
  59. Step daughter.


    OK...you're being eviscerated again, as usual.
     
  60. i feel sorry for HIM :D
     
  61. Why?

    You don't know him or her.
     
  62. Because he has YOU for a father-in-law :D
     
  63. What are my conclusions?
     
  64. How would I know if you don't?

    Since you dispute Hawking's conclusions, your conclusions must be different. That's all I need to know.
     
  65. My conclusion is that:

    A) on top of being a total bitch (bankteller1 is from quebec and worked as a bank teller his whole life.)

    B) He is also a homo (again worked as a bank teller in quebec)
     
  66. Hawking is brilliant but that doesn't make him infallible. He's made plenty of mistakes in his career (as does everyone) so it's foolish to take something that he or anyone else says as "gospel."

    Go back and read this article. Anyone at all scientifically minded and with a lick of common sense will realize that humans know far too little about the universe to make such grand pronouncements. The more likely explanation is that he's losing it and that saddens me because I'm a big fan of his work.
    http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

     
  67. The carcass continues to speak. Or does a ventriloquist have a hand up his ass making him smile and look like he's talking? You decide.
     
  68. This a pattern with Gayfly.

    Like when he got the meaning of treason wrong, then admitted it, then flip-flopped again and tried to obfuscate by accusing me of "false pedantry" for insisting on the Constitution's definition of treason instead of the ever changing definition in his head. :p

    Hoodooman, thank you for the clarification. "Treasonous" should be replaced with "seditious" in the thread title and text. Much appreciated.

    As I noted earlier, hoodooman aptly pointed to the distinction between treason and sedition, for which I am grateful. The mistake was mine. Therefore, and I repeat, let's go with sedition.

    No. I got it right the first time. You are just too busy engaging in false pedantry to recognize it.
     
  69. Gabs needs the debates to devolve to ad hominem as quickly as possible because he doesn't actually like the factual portion of these arguments, he gets his entertainment when it becomes an exchange of insults. That is what the man likes.

    My guess is that he is not in any position to voice his opinions in his personal or professional life. People like that sometimes find an avenue for expressing themselves a bit more freely than is possible in real life. Some end up in strip clubs and some hurl insults with glee on the internet. Others cross-dress or become paintball fanatics. You get the picture. Oppressive job environment and fat psychopathic wife makes Jack a Dull Boy.
     
  70. Let's see if we can connect these dots:

    1. Index Piker is a blatant racist who clearly wrote in a post that he would be okay with the president assassinated.

    2. I took him to task and called him out, since his sentiments are of a treasonous nature. Not acts, but sentiments.

    3. You never once criticized Index Piker directly for his remarks by telling him so. Rather, knowing full well what he wrote, you chose to go pendantic on me instead regarding my disgust about those very same remarks of his. Repeatedly. But never once did you attack or criticize Index Piker directly. And only after numerous attacks on me did you once suggest that you didn't approve of Index Piker's comments. But it was with a much lighter hand and only in passing by comparison.

    4. For every mildly negative remark about Index Piker on your part, you have made at least a dozen vitriolic remarks about me for taking Index Piker to task.

    5. Therefore, you attack those who call racists who want to see the president assassinated, but you virtually condone and appease the actual racist himself by comparison.

    Conclusion: For all intents and purposes, Trader666 appeases and condones racism and the idea of presidential assassination.
     
  71. Yep apparently corporatebankteller1 was so succesful in his canadian banking career that he now despises capitalism, and trolls the internet calling all americans who disagree with him racists while trying to figure out how to trade off sub 1 minute charts.... LOL he is clearly either seriously disturbed or a total fucking loser..... i would suspect the latter......

     
  72. I see your point:
     
  73. LOL you are the only person on this site who manages to sidetrack people like this i proved what a bitch you are, i need to leave now to meet my friends at arizonas, the offer still stands when you want to prove what a successfull "corporate fluffer" you were.

     
  74. I believe I merely asked how Hawkings could possibly know for an indisputable fact that God did not create the universe.
     
  75. Because I like what Obama stands for? I guess that PTJ, Buffett and Soros must also "despise capitalism," eh?
     
  76. Your continued lies about this, even after I made my views crystal clear, only prove you're a compulsive liar.
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2925786#post2925786

    Let's take a look at the thread that you started in feedback in a lame attempt to get Index Piker banned:
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194839

    Well he wasn't banned and not a peep from Baron, despite your phony campaign.

    Why haven't you gone back onto YOUR thread to demand accountability from Baron? Why haven't you accused Baron of condoning "racism and the idea of presidential assassination"?

    Come on Gayfly. What's the problem?
     
  77. oh it's disputable but only a god-fearing moron would take the other side of the argument :D
     
  78. You just proved my point. You did not even address Index Piker directly in the single instance where you mildly indicated disagreement. You told me, and only in passing. Once. However, you have followed me across several threads repeatedly and relentlessly, just as you are doing here, because I took Index Piker to task. That was my point. Thank you.
     
  79. Total bullshit. I wasn't involved in those threads and you know it.

    You didn't answer my question you lying hypocrite.

    Here's the thread that you started in feedback to get Index Piker banned:
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194839

    He wasn't banned and not a peep from Baron, despite your best efforts.

    Why haven't you gone back onto YOUR thread to demand accountability from Baron? Why haven't you accused Baron of condoning "racism and the idea of presidential assassination"?

    Come on Gayfly. What's the problem?
     
  80. I complained, via PM and the complain button. The thread I had started speaks for itself. Nice evasion tactic, though. Appeaser.
     
  81. Why didn't you post your displeasure ON YOUR OWN THREAD?

    Why haven't you accused Baron of condoning "racism and the idea of presidential assassination?" It's his site and he could have banned Piker with a few keystrokes but did not.
     
  82. Free Thinker, please excuse this diversion from your topic. But please let these unrelated posts remain so that the caliber of those who take issue with your subject matter remains as a matter of record.
     
  83. I agree. Further documentation that you're a lying, cowardly hypocrite.
     
  84. Such haughty arrogance, and from a former bank teller no less.
     
  85. Did you already forget? It WAS my own thread:
    Click on the very link in your post. Your own post!

    Why did I not go after Baron? He did not make it a career to go after me for attacking Index Piker, as you have taken it upon yourself to attack me in apparent defense of Index Piker, one lukewarm criticism about him but not even to him notwithstanding. I believe I made it plain to the ET's administration how I feel about racism and such. Much as you have amply illustrated your sentiments by choices you have made about whom to attack relentlessly.
     
  86. You're totally full of shit...

    I wasn't involved AT ALL in the threads in question; I made ZERO posts in them. Even so, I gave you my thoughts on Index Piker's comments after-the-fact which you've compulsively lied about.

    You, OTOH, started a thread to ban Index Piker but you didn't even get a peep out of Baron, let alone achieve your objective.

    So in your typical, lying, cowardly, accusatory fashion you accused me and others of being "appeasers" but of course you didn't have the balls to confront Baron IN YOUR OWN THREAD and accuse him of the same thing.

    You're beyond pathetic.
     
  87. One of the pitfalls of engaging an imbecile in an exchange of any kind, is that he doesn't even know when he has been eviscerated. Hence the expression, "He's too dumb to die."
     
  88. You've got your projector running full blast I see :p
     
  89. Not only that, but you also managed to put Hawking, the world's foremost living theoretical physicist, in his place:
    Very impressive.
     
  90. I wonder, how you would refer to him if he did not agree with you.

    Hawking the racist perhaps?
     
  91. http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking

    Oh, and I don't presume that HE agrees with ME. I'm just not quick to dismiss one of the finest minds on the planet by way of an offhanded remark.
     
  92. Just as soon as an astute observer manages to identify it.
     
  93. From my buddy bryant: I would love to beat some black into this assholes kracker ass.

    Bankteller1 is so popular he dont even have to make an appearance at arizonas to make friends.
     
  94. I'll make it real simple.

    It's a FACT that humans have NO IDEA why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Until 1998, we didn't even know it was accelerating and had assumed gravity was slowing it down.

    Given such an incredibly incomplete understanding, one can't say grandiose things like “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..."
     
  95. Very dignified.
     
  96. wil tells me ur a racist u pasty bitch... U wanna see if black ppl live in TO
     
  97. I imagine those very words were on "God's" mind when "He" made you.

    Meanwhile, my background does not prepare me to question, let alone debate, theoretical physics with Dr. Hawking. However, since you presume to be up to the challenge, I suggest you take it up with him directly. No doubt, he awaits your much needed input with considerable anticipation.
     
  98. why dnt you brng your ass to arzonas you fernch pussy
     
  99. I can only imagine what you friends must be saying after you fed them all manner of lies stemming from your comprehension deficit. Doubling down doesn't make you right. It only makes you that much more of a doofus.
     
  100. Maybe a picture will help.

    This is the estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. Both are theoretical concepts that we have no clue about and created in an attempt to reconcile differences between theory and observation. We barely understand the remaining 4%.

    If you still think Hawking can say “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..." you're just confirming yet again that you can't think for yourself.

    What would you do if two doctors gave you conflicting medical advice? You're not a doctor. Scratch that... I forgot for a sec you're a Canadian and don't have the luxury of two doctors' opinions. :p

    [​IMG]
     
  101. will says yer a racst go eat some putine you french cunt
     
  102. Classy fellow, that Will.
     
  103. I will prove there is lts of black ppl in TO come to arizonas you cowrd
     
  104. And you are that other doctor? Please don't ever lose that sense of humor. Meanwhile, I'll leave you to your do-it-yourself astrophysics.
     
  105. Will says you wre a bank tellr before you went on welfare,,, loser
     
  106. yopu like Obama>? Race traitor!!!
     
  107. hahaha this is too funny screwing arnd on th blacberry and lauging at Bankteller1!!!

    Made my day!!
     
  108. Haha Will told me to fuck with you and spell horrendously to see how much shit you would put up with if it came from a black person, you are seriously a bitch man.... grow a pair.
     
  109. u thogyt becaze i was an undermedukated blak you coudltyn point out my spelling defficieny, werdz!!

     
  110. I just lost 20 bucks on you, will said i could basically treat you like a piece of garbage and spell horrendously and you would be to much of a bitch to man up and point it out, as long as you thought i was black,even though from what he says you always attack peoples spellng mistakes. Even the most pathetic whities i have met in my day atleast had a backbone.
     
  111. There's that infallible logic of yours again. YOU were typing, not anyone else. How could I criticize someone else for YOUR typing? Asshole. You think I was being unduly polite? Have I not repeatedly and accurately pointed to your dimness?

    Since you said earlier you were going to some bar ("Asbestos" or whatever), I figured you were getting sloshed and typing in shorthand on your phone. If anyone hasn't yet made it known to you, you and your friends are fairly lowbrow. Now get back to your grog lest any of your brain cells should escape.
     
  112. We are all laughing even harder now, we have been inside arizonas on a blackberry this entire time dipshit. Bryant was typing, not me, i simply told him to make his spelling "atroshus" and let it be known it was from a black guy, and see what kind of shit you would put up with. LOL oh my god, now the waitress is even laughing with us....
     
  113. Except for the small fact that in your posts you were referring to your friends as having made the various insults. Therefore, you were doing the typing. If "Will" was typing, he would not have written "My friend Will says..." Unless, of course, he's as brain dead as you are.

    Idiot.
     
  114. OMG OMG, thank you for making our day we are literally on the floor now...... I AM WILL YOU DUMB FUCK i told my friends to use the name "hello" but they used my first name cauise they forgot.....

     
  115. Oh, I have no doubt that the wall you're leaning on is the floor.
     
  116. Bryant wants to know if he can just show up at your house and you could just give him your wallet.
     
  117. He says to just leave it in the mailbox so he doesnt have to waste any time with you.......

    HAHAHAHAHAHA
     
  118. Gayfly... give him your wallet or you're a racist.
     
  119. OMG I CANT WAIT FOR WILL TO SEE THAT I JUST SHOT RUM AND COKE OUT OF MY NOSE......

    It was dark rhum just incase anyone believes i am a race traitor.
     
  120. That reminds me, whenever I eat at KFC I always insist on all dark meat.
     
  121. There are several problems with this short statement. First off, gravity is not a 'law'. Second, the whole sentence doesn't really make any sense, since physics is the study of the mechanical processes which characterize the natural world. We are not looking for 'facts' that say where the natural world 'comes from' because the phrase 'comes from ' implies a (usually religiously informed) set of assumptions that are not a part of the physics. I do not know this for sure, but I am guessing that the person who posted the above is a religious person.
     
  122. There are several problems with every statement peil makes. Isn't it fascinating how people with absolutely no related background feel confident enought to weigh in on some of the highest levels of scientific thought? And all this because they got a "second opinion" on the Internet. I'm surprised that some of these über scientists among use here at ET are not performing neurosurgery or at least designing new and better bridges in their leisure moments.

    They are not even in a position to legitimately evaluate the credibility of their "alternative sources," let alone on the content and its proper interpretation. Even so, peil et al are ready to take on one of the most brilliant minds alive. And all this between setups. Who would have thought there were so many astrophysicists among us, so well versed in the nuances of theoretical physics?
     
  123. Wrong again. Explain where my logic fails in the link below, Gayfly. You can't because it doesn't and you're just another B- brain who can't think for himself.

    I'll tell you where yours fails. You have NO IDEA what everyone's background is here AND Hawking's not infallible AND one doesn't need a PhD in physics to understand that given how little we know about the universe, Hawking's statement was a highly speculative reach at best.
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2943416#post2943416

     
  124. Point taken. Kindly set the matter straight. Please tell me how many university undergraduate courses you have taken in physics, let alone the research you have done at the graduate, post graduate and post doctoral levels.
     
  125. Typical Gayfly, trying to turn the tables by answering a question with a question because you have no answer.

    96% of the universe is currently thought to consist of "dark energy" and "dark matter" which are theoretical constructs hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile differences between theory and observation.

    Given that scientists admittedly have NO CLUE about the vast majority of the universe, explain how any human can make a definitive statement like Hawking did.

    “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..."

    In other words, how is it rational to proclaim that, that which we know practically nothing about can and will create itself from nothing?

    You're proving yet again that you not only have a B- brain; you're also incapable of honest discussion and debate.
     
  126. Not at all. You opened the door. I merely walked through it. You pointed out that I had no idea what anyone's background is here. And you are correct. I don't. Therefore, I await the logical next step: your advising me exactly what your background is in this scientific field and how many years you have devoted to its study and advancement, which would give you a legitimate voice in this discussion. I am simply following up on the valid assertion that you made. I am not in a position to weigh in and counter anything Hawking has to say because I recognize that I do not have the proper grounding to do so. I am sufficiently self-aware to be cognizant of my limitations, and I do not know of a better mind than his who can dispute his current thinking. Please assure me that you are not looking to debate Hawking with nothing more than high school physics and a couple of Internet references. Surely no one can be that stupid.
     
  127. Oh please... that's exactly what you're trying to do because your little B- brain hasn't been able to come up with anything of substance. So in typical troll fashion, you ask for my resume. Get a life Gayfly :p
    Again you prove you can't think for yourself. Just because Hawking says so and he has the "best" credentials, you accept it? Never mind that scientists are for all practical purposes clueless about the nature of the universe AS I'VE SHOWN YOU. Dispute it or STFU. This is not about credentials. Mine BTW are none of your business.
     
  128. Wonder if hawking trades and if so, what????
     
  129. by the time the book comes out the quote will be put in context.

    I am willing to bet... he is going to go into M theory to explain the anthropic principle and explain why our universe is so finely tuned.
    Just like susskind.

    And therefore "this" universe had to come out the way it did because we need gravity to be the way it is.

    If Hawking produces proof of other universes, then that will be noteworthy.

    I have been watching his recent shows on one of the science channels.

    He seems to think that our universe is so vast that there is reason to suspect there are lots of other life forms out there.

    Basically he does not think humans are likely to be special.
     
  130. Yes, I know. You run circles around world class scientists in your spare time.
    How very surprising.
     
  131. What's the big deal? He is espousing a theory. He does it all the time. And he alters his theories over time too. The guy is a scientist. That means he is still looking and will never stop looking.

    And if he finds something else - he'll change his theory again.
     
  132. multiverse - it is -

    although still waiting for the explanation of the out of nothing because of "gravity" and quantum theory part.

    Note: these multiverse guys love to play down the "if it is true part" but the "if" is there.



    "By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

    If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

    The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

    Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

    That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

    Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

    Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html
     
  133. Wow, what a submissive little bitch you are, meekly accepting whatever "authorities" say, whether it's rational or not. I'll have to lower my opinion of you. You're only a C+ brain.

    NO WAY can someone explain how/why the universe supposedly materialized out of nothing if they don't even understand what it consists of.

    Dispute that Gayfly. You can't? Didn't think so. Troll on then! :p
     
  134. Trader666, whose credentials he has assured me are secret and none of my business, continues to expound the intricacies of astrophysics and where Hawking has it hopelessly wrong. Rather akin to a manic-depressive pontificating on level-headedness, wouldn't you say?
     
  135. Ever thought about joining a cult or taking up Jack Hershey trading? You need a guru to do your thinking for you.

    No credentials are needed for common sense which you obviously lack. You also lack a rebuttal to my logic so all you can do is lie and try to distort this in typical Gayfly troll fashion. How transparent.

    I never "assured you my credentials are secret" and this isn't about "the intricacies of astrophysics." LOLOL!!!!!

    But what else would we expect from the one who accused someone of treason without even knowing what it meant?
     
  136. Some people can't think for themselves.

    Exhibit 1: Gayfly.
     
  137. leaves no place vs. need not
    gravity vs. nothing

    Reporter or author contradictions ... ? "not that there is anything wrong with that" ... :) Speculations ... faith vs. not ... there's a God vs. I am god ... :))
     
  138. And he wants to make a buck (pound), and to feed his celebrity and ego ... :) Not much different than most ET posters ... :p
     
  139. ....then
    science is fact without conclusion, religion conclusion without fact.
     
  140. Susskind: The cosmological constant appears to be very finely tuned. A slight difference one way or the other and we don't exist. One explanation for such fine tuning is God.

    Jem: Susskind invented string theory. According to Susskind, God is responsible for fine tuning of the cosmological constant.

    o_O
     
  141. Jem . . . what do you have to say ?
     
  142. Piezoe, thread necromancer.

    [​IMG]
     
  143. no piezoe... that is not what I stated.

    susskind posits that one of the solutions to the fine tuning of our universe is God... his preferred options is belief in almost infinite universe (at least 10 to the 500). Note during the polchinski discussion that 10 to the 500 cut and pastes over at 10,500 but it is 10 raised to the 500

    here is background...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html?_r=0

    Physicists are not like ordinary people, and string theorists are not like ordinary physicists. Even compared with their peers, crafters of the arcane model of reality that is string theory think in terms of sweeping explanations of nature's design. Leonard Susskind, a founder of the theory and one of its leading practitioners, brazenly lays out this no-boundaries attitude on the first page of his new book. His research, he declares, "touches not only on current paradigm shifts in physics and cosmology, but also on the profound cultural questions that are rocking our social and political landscape: can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?"

    THE COSMIC LANDSCAPE
    String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

    By Leonard Susskind.
    Illustrated. 403 pp. Little, Brown & Company. $24.95.
    [​IMG]
    First Chapter: 'The Cosmic Landscape' (January 15, 2006)
    [​IMG]
    Forum: Book News and Reviews


    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."

    Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life.

    Although Susskind's title and central motivation are drawn from this fascinating debate over design, most of "The Cosmic Landscape" is structured not around philosophy but around the nuts-and-bolts concepts of modern particle physics. Here Susskind's long years as a theorist and lecturer at Stanford University prove a mixed blessing. He is a good-humored and enthusiastic tour guide but he clearly does not know how baffling he sounds much of the time. He coaxes the reader along with rhetorical questions and charmingly corny allegories. Still, this isn't much help when it comes to material like "Let's suppose that the Calabi Yau manifold has a topology that is rich enough to allow 500 distinct doughnut holes through which the fluxes wind. The flux through each hole must be an integer, so a string of 500 integers has to be specified." Um, is this going to be on the exam?

    Susskind's insider perspective also lends an air of smugness to the whole affair. He falls prey to the common error of Whig history: interpreting past events as if they were inevitable stepping stones to the present. He allows remarkably little doubt about string theory considering that it has, as yet, not a whit of observational support. "As much as I would very much like to balance things by explaining the opposing side, I simply can't find that other side," he writes in his concluding chapter.

    Such braggadocio begs for an anthropic question of its own. Humans have been around in more or less their present form for about 150,000 years; detailed stories of the origin of the world run as far back as the first written languages and surely existed in oral form much earlier still. How likely is it that this generation, right now, is the lucky one that has discovered the final answer?

    I'm not a physicist, but if I were putting money on the table, I wouldn't take those odds.

    Corey S. Powell is a senior editor at Discover magazine and author of "God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion."











     
  144. here is susskind himself explaining it very clearly.


     
  145. by the way... here is how I responded to this thread years ago... see
    Hawking's quote is in the context of the multiverse...
    see the last 2 paragraphs...



    "By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

    If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

    The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

    Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

    That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

    Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

    Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html[/quote]
     
  146. It's all conjecture. They have no idea. No proof. Just theories and models.....
     
  147. that Cern could find the higgs boson at an area predicted by the standard model strikes me as one heck of a test of theory.

    the standard model of physics sure appears to be incredibly fine tuned right now.
     
  148. Sure. But those predictions are based on established laws and models. Prior to the Big Bang, or whatever was the genesis of the universe, nothing existed. Nobody can postulate what happened before that point, because nobody really knows.
     

  149. He's feeling arrogant due to the new movie--- his days are numbered from here. RIP
     
  150. Agreed. Claims with absolute certainty there is no God, based on some mathematical formula, riddled with assumptions, are preposterous.
     

  151. Far less preposterous than the concept of God. Some dude that said "Let there be a Big Bang".

    I can see how people in the past - before we knew about evolution and cosmology and biology - made up God to explain things and give them comfort, but in today's world, only through ignorance and/or delusion can such an absurd idea be maintained.
     
  152. A fool says in their heart, 'there is no God'.
     
  153. No question about it. Believe or don't believe, but to claim absolute certainty is a fools errand.
     
  154. Multiple universes is eternity for atheists...
     
  155. I would say multiverses are the same as God for atheists.
    They take faith because they are unproven and probably un"testable" and (in one of them) anything and everything that can happen happens.

    Sort of making them all knowing and all powerful.

    And as Hawking said essentially making you God of that universe that just happens to be the way you experienced it.



     
  156. Speaking for others is a bad habit of theists.
     
  157. hmmm

    That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; Proverbs 22:21
     

  158. Just because the Book is self serving is not relevant to a creator---- I think a creator can exist outside of description in an ancient tome.

    with that said, one can be "personally" certain but can not make this belief a certainty for everyone, as SH does. surf
     
  159. Some ideas or concepts do not require the breaking of natural laws, as we currently understand them, nor do they require blind faith in the supernatural. So until shown to be unreasonable or unlikely, we can regard them as at least a possibility. On the other hand, if a physicist such Susskind unwisely chooses language such as "fine tuned" to mean only that if things were a little different, the universe as we know it, would not exist, he has immediately opened a door through which someone will be only to happy to step, claiming that if "fine tuning" exists there must therefore be a fine tuner. But such a loose misreading of Susskind's remark can only make sense in the supernatural world of religion, where the natural laws are irrelevant.
     
  160. Piezoe... did you understand this...
    I can get you a primer if you need it

    This is not loose wording... this is very precise calulated wording being use to explain away the incredible fine tuning of our universe... with a multiverse...

    Our universe's fine tuning is incredibly "unnatural" the way science uses the word natural.
    If you do not understand that ... you do not understand the standard model.

    watch this again... you are smearing one of top guys in the field of physics as loose with his wording. ... he does not screw around with his words... he is very precise. Surely you realize Scientists of this caliber are not loose with words.

    This guy has a real mind... rather than gruber us... he waited til Polchinski came up with the 10 to 500 string theory solutions... before he even brought this out to the public in a book.



    [/quote]
     
  161. for instance... this is what finding the higgs boson confirmed...

    http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

    The constant gardener

    One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

    Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.
     
  162.  

  163. And he came up with that quote a long time ago. Before we knew better. Now it's just another stupid quote. It is now far more the fool that says there is a God.
     
  164. Piezoe is right. Oceans of knowledge exist that humanity is completely blind too. In the face of that profound ignorance, to claim with absolute certainty there is no God, is the height of stupidity, and reveals ones innate bias. The best a rational person can hope to be is agnostic.
     

  165. All right. I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that there is no God. Is that better?
     
  166. You don't get it.
     
  167. Sure I do. I left some room for the possibility. Got it covered.
     
  168. No doubt if there is a god he wishes he could have a mulligan on creating you.
     
  169. Don't forget the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and leprechauns.
     

  170. Only a fool says in his heart that there is no leprechauns. They also have bad grammar.
     
  171. I doubt that Hawking or any other reputable person of science would say that God "did not" create the universe. There's a world of difference between not necessary and did not. Real truth seekers are agnostic. Anyone claiming to know what is currently unknowable is a zealot, religious or otherwise.
     
  172. You're right. No reputable scientist would say God "did not" create the universe any more than they would say Chuck Norris "did not" create the universe
    Real truth seekers don't insert God or Chuck Norris into such things as they are both irrelevant and not required.
    The universe is however understood scientifically and mathematically to be more than capable of creating itself from nothing and you will find reputable scientists supporting that.
    Invoking Gods in the 21st century to explain the universe is little more than the remnants of a primitive reaction playing itself out and to be agnostic I suggest, is no more than the failure of human reasoning which invites every form of imaginary notion including the promotion of the Tooth Fairy into the role of Creator.
     
  173. B.S. by stu again.

    Very few if any scientists would argue this universe created itself... without invoking faith in the multiverse. We have done this before for hundreds of pages and about 7 years on ET and each year more and more scientists speak of the fine tunings to the point where it is a universally acknowleged argument. Some may disagree but no one acts like there is not an appearance of fine tuning to many scientists. And, few if any scientists now state we got here by random chance... without invoking faith in the multiverse.

    That we are here and the standard model is so finely tunes invokes the need for an explanation of how this universe is so finely tuned for life.

    Creator is one reasonable explanation for the incredible fine tunings but note... I am not saying it is the only possible explanation.

    To deny that a Creator is one possible explanation is childish in thought and learning.


     
  174. It's amazing how whenever someone says something intelligent jerm calls it bullshit. Just amazing. It's like he has a highly developed sense of fine tuning out that which he does not want to hear.

    Wow, maybe jerm is the fine tuner! Scary thought.
     
  175. I call b.s. when someone makes claims about by science that are untrue.
    I am very familiar with the literature and books in the area as I own a few and have been debating stu and others on this since about the time Susskind's book came out.

    I have never seen any scientist state what stu claims without resorting to the multiverse. So by saying that with including the multiverse in his statement, what stu wrote is highly misleading. In the past when stu made the similar statements he cited Hawkings recent book. But all you have to do is go back a few pages and see Hawking made the quote about gravity in the context of a mulitverse with m theory.

    So stu has been bullshiting about this for years.
     
  176. That's exactly right. "Scientific" conjecture. Nothing more.
     

  177. Yeah just "scientific". What has science ever done for us?

    I just love it when dumb righties disparage knowledge. Like ignorance is better.
     
  178. Science has done one good thing for us. Learned how to create nuclear bombs so we can point them at each other. And of course we have already used a few to cook and bake some Japanese people.
     
  179. You call b.s. on everything you won't, cant or don't want to understand.

    You've never been able to debate (you're too busy calling everything you think fucks with your superstitious beliefs as bullshit), let alone grasp that, whether it's to do with one universe or multiple universes, string theory or M theory; whatever, it makes no difference.
    How the whole shebang can come about spontaneously from nothing is what modern physics is explaining.
    Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill.
    God pointlessly begs the question.
     

  180. OK then, do everyone a favor and use a witch doctor the next time you get sick.

    Throw away your computer and go back to writing letters.


    What is it with you righties that you hate knowledge so much? It's like you prefer staying dumb.
     
  181. I might not be able to debate... but you just conceded the point about God as the possible explanation for creation, something you concede about once every 5 years. So we are done with this argument now.

     

  182. :rolleyes:
     
  183. ..and that's another good example of why you're clearly a fundamentally dishonest person.
     
  184. It is amazing to me that the trolls who lie their ass off about science here on ET - like you and fraudcurrents go around accusing others of being dishonest.

    you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake. whereas you lied about the state of science every day for years and years... including your lie about there being plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.

    and you just implicitly lied by acting like you have always admitted God is a possible explanation for creation. (you admitted it once or twice over the last 7 years and yet wrote 100s of posts acting like it is low function to believe there could be a Creator.... you even did it on few pages ago.

     
  185. ...and there it is again and just as I said. Yet another example of your fundamental dishonesty. At the core you must truly be a deceitful person who really can't help themself.

    Of course I can and have pointed to numerous repetitive dishonest comments you make which you never admit to and here we are again, you're making two of them simply because you're incapable of being honest in what you say.

    So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life."
    That you have to stoop to distorting my statement to curve fit your untruthful position speaks volumes about your thorough lack of honesty.

    My statement has always been in clear terms of "plenty of science showing how life can evolve from non life". Which is a completely true comment. I have never made the definitive strawman statement you misrepresent with, that "science shows life evolved from non life."

    Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.

    Then there's your deception about me acting as if God is a possible explanation for anything let alone all of creation. I have never said or implied that unless you utterly distort the meaning of language itself, which of course you will do to feed the nonsense you pathetically try to defend.

    Are you trying to pretend when anyone uses a capital C in Creator they can only mean God despite everything else? I distinctly put Gravity as the Creator of the Universe and you say that means I implied God. Only a fibber would insist I did any such thing.

    Normally one would put that down to you just being stupid but of course you have form. Purposely misrepresenting in order to lie about what's actually being said is what you do instinctively and why you must be a fundamentally dishonest person.

    Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.

    Then your comments have been riddled with the falsehood that science and scientists are saying categorically the Universe IS fine tuned, although all any reputable scientist has ever remarked is that the Universe APPEARS fine tuned. There simply is no science to confirm it IS fine tuned.

    Another blatant distortion that fits perfectly in the realms of your constant lies and deceptions to support nothing more than a delusion for imaginary God.

    Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.


    You're basically too much of a dishonest person to admit to your dishonesty.
     
  186. you are so full of shit in every way... you absolutely stated it and I have linked to it in the past.
    You put the word "can" in to change the nature of you lies in later quotes...


    Stu said...

    "There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

    http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...cience showing life from non life#post3270666





     
  187. Quote from jem:

    Stu here is your quote... and you have stated it in other places.

    Stu is denying he every said this on another thread.
    Every few weeks he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... then when we present the science he denies he said it and makes up similar lies to the ones above.


    Quote from Stu:


    I do seriously wonder if all your chairs are at home Jem.

    I say this ....."There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

    It is obvious to anyone who cares to look how that is quite true. There’s no pretence No mention of proof of life from non life… even though there is proof of how life’s essential components do arise naturally from inorganic matter.

    So you say, I said this....." he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... "

    You do that to everything don't you? Words and meaning must change as they pass through that creationist filter between your ears because you just don’t want to understand the reality.

    It's incredible what religious delusion must have done to your ability to think straight.

    And who is this "we" presenting science?
    Just be careful is all I advise. You've shown many worrying signs of having a split personality with all that weird screen name business on quite a few previous occasions. Now this.

    "We" don't want any more of that unhealthy kind of thing now do "we"?
     
  188. Finally, here is how Stu operates... .

    "Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill."
    and then later tries to blame me for his bullshit purposely crafted imprecise sentence structure.

    Stu you said Gravity fits that bill you --- did not say exclusively or only fits that bill. Plus you Capitialized Creator. Leaving the door open for a Deist God and the God of Abraham etc... to also fit the bill.

    Don't try your troll rewording with me.
    What you wrote is not the same as saying only Gravity could be the Creator.
    You left the door open for other Creators in that sentence particularly by using the capital.

    Don't call me the liar here you troll. You wrote the sentence that did not properly convey the meaning you now wish.
     

  189. Bingo.

    But to be fair, it comes easily to lawyers. They are paid to be good liars.
     

  190. You use the word "troll" a lot. I think there is psychological term for that.
     
  191. so you quote that after I present proof its Stu who was lying.

    I see tweedle dum and tweedle dum are out today...again.
     
  192. Jem . . . .is this true ? . ?.
     
  193. Hawking thinks he created the universe. :p
     
  194. in pertinent part from about 1 page ago.. we see stu lying about using the word "can".
     
  195. I'm assuming you have absolutely no idea how childish all this sounds.
     
  196. Lets see.

    I'm an engineer with an electrophysics education and grew up with zero religious influence. I've been inside a church one time (a wedding at an old catholic church in Baltimore, I sat in the back row wearing dark sunglasses with 10 empty rows between me and everybody else lol). Point being that I'm not a religious person in any traditional sense.

    But I've always been troubled by, well... our very existence. Certainly I am convinced that Darwinism is correct in that it nicely explains what we see around us today but the part that bothers me is the beginning. I have trouble believing that a soup of carbon based acids somehow magically becomes a self-organizing system even when being exposed to lightning and other intense forms of energy. It seems to violate the law of entropy and therefore is inconsistent with thermodynamics. Organized systems become chaotic, not more organized.

    The fact that instantaneous action-at-a-distance has been confirmed to exist adds to my determination to keep my mind open. All of us microwave guys always knew it because we studied Maxwell primarily and he said that everything was literally connected mechanically and that action-at-a-distance was a certainty.

    Bottom line... I doubt that life is spontaneous and I wouldn't be completely shocked if something else was at work.
     
  197. Just like when he says that there is no science showing AGW is real.

    Fundamentally intellectually dishonest. I call it lying.
     
  198. Or one can be charitable and call it cognitive dissonance.
     
  199. A mixture of the two maybe, they both make him a fundamentally dishonest person in most everything he posts from goddidit to AGW .

    It's funny though in another way, as everyone except himself can see how he's so deceptive even in the evidence he offered up in trying to defend his own deceit.:rolleyes:

    Doubt he was ever a lawyer. Apart from him not knowing cite is not spelt as site, they do at least need to be clever enough to know they are lying.:D
     
  200. The online personas that people create for themselves are always entertaining.
     
  201. Hawking created known universe.
     
  202. AGW-

    go ahead you lying trolls...
    post a link to a paper showing proving man made co2 causes warming.
    (failed models don't count as science)

    You will not... because there is not science showing man made co2 causes warming...
    (note this is not whether greenhouse gases can warm... because we also know they can also cool.)
     
  203. Here we go again with the intellectual dishonesty. I mean lying.


    go ahead you lying troll...
    post a link to a paper proving evolution.


    You will not... because there is no science showing evolution...


    Come one jerm! How hard could it be? Show the paper!
     
  204. the ignorance of science by these trolls is stunning. The dishonesty is amazing.

    Stu could not produce his plenty of science showing life from non life... because there is no complete pathway that science has found in which non life evolves into life.
    That is what science is working on. Top scientists are attempting to find a plausible pathway.
    That does not mean that mean life evolved that way... but they are hoping to find at least a plausible pathway.


    Once life was established... then by most current definitions we evolved.

    and also note... we have not even discussed the fact that a drive for life may exist in the building blocks or that we had directed evolution. (those things are also considered by scientists as well as pan spermia because the time for life to evolve on earth by random chance seems relatively short)

     


  205. o_O:eek::confused:

    So where's the evolution paper jem? go ahead you lying troll...
    post a link to a paper proving evolution.

     
  206. ..or gravity:D


    It's the extremely stupid and dishonest claim you keep making that others are using the word proof, when any honest person can see isn't so, along with all the other falsities you post, that show you to be a thoroughly dishonest person Jem.
     
  207. you have lost your mind? fraudcurrents.

    there is no paper showing evolution from non life to life... troll.
    because science has not even found a plausible pathway yet.
    Do you want quotes from top scientists?
    Check the threads where I disabused Stu of his lies and misrepresentations on this subject.


     
  208. Deaf, blind, stupid and completely dishonest.

    How many times, Jem you idiot....

    I said.... "There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
    I've also said... "There is plenty of science showing how life can come from non life."

    I stand by both. They are both true.
    All I have ever stated are in those terms.

    I have never stated, implied or even intimated anywhere, ever, that..."we had proof that life came from non life."

    Only you have done that in the pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth. Well fuck you.:p


    As a complete moron and idiot and being the utterly dishonest creep that you are, it can be seen by anyone how you are always lying, altering quotes to mislead yourself into deceits like these ...


    Quote from Jem
    "For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."

    Quote from Jem
    "Every few weeks he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life..."


    Still, as a magnanimous gesture on my behalf and in keeping with the season, I'd nevertheless like to wish you a very Merry go fuckyourself Xmas and also take the opportunity of offering condolences to your family for having such an asshole as a relative at this and every other time of year.[​IMG]
     
  209.  
  210. Quote from Stu on page 20 of this thread:

    "So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life."
    That you have to stoop to distorting my statement to curve fit your untruthful position speaks volumes about your thorough lack of honesty.

    My statement has always been in clear terms of "plenty of science showing how life can evolve from non life". Which is a completely true comment.""
     
  211. Quote from Stu on this page...


    I said.... "There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
    I've also said... "There is plenty of science showing how life can come from non life."

    I stand by both. They are both true.
    All I have ever stated are in those terms.
     
  212. Its the end of the year... a good time to reflect on whether you should be calling someone else a liar.

    Especially in a forum which has a search function and you really are the troll liar and you can't show any quotes to be lies by the other guy. Even though he has made thousands of posts over 10 years.
     
  213. :confused::eek::rolleyes:o_O
     
  214. Quote from Jem
    "For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."

    that statement of yours makes you a Liar ....and a total hypocrite.

    it's...... a good time to reflect on whether you should be calling someone else a liar.
     
  215.  


  216. 'god should be flattered'
     
  217. thats charming but there is one issue for you. That statement was true when I made it. Part of the proof is quoted just above.

     
  218. "For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."
    That statement, your statement, has never been true. It's one of those deceits that makes you a liar.
     
  219. you really should check your lies Stu, this forum has a search function.
    you were lying about science back then and I called you out on your lies many times.


    quote 1 form Stu

    None of the de Duve's quotes say any such thing.
    A de Duve quote does state categorically chance.

    But as an ID'er, you are of course all about misinformation, misrepresenting , misquoting and misunderstanding.

    There is plenty of science showing life from non life.
    But you've already overplayed the devious nature of your intention. You are not after any proof.

    You'll take anything, proof, quotes, science, to misrepresent what they say as if by doing so it will give some credibility to your intelligent design nonsense.
    It really doesn’t work.

    quote 2 from Stu

    I do seriously wonder if all your chairs are at home Jem.

    I say this ....."There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

    It is obvious to anyone who cares to look how that is quite true. There’s no pretence No mention of proof of life from non life… even though there is proof of how life’s essential components do arise naturally from inorganic matter.

    So you say, I said this....." he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... "

    You do that to everything don't you? Words and meaning must change as they pass through that creationist filter between your ears because you just don’t want to understand the reality.

    It's incredible what religious delusion must have done to your ability to think straight.

    And who is this "we" presenting science?
    Just be careful is all I advise. You've shown many worrying signs of having a split personality with all that weird screen name business on quite a few previous occasions. Now this.

    "We" don't want any more of that unhealthy kind of thing now do "we"?
     
  220. By all means keep shooting yourself in the foot that way.
    It's to be expected that someone who is clearly pathologically dishonest such as yourself will see any true statements which don't appeal as lies.

    No matter. You simply own this lie ...
    Quote from Jem:
    "For years you said we have proof that life came from non life."
     
  221. So even though I have a quote from 4 years ago and a quote a few pages ago where you stand by that statement you are still trying to imply something about your statement but don't have the guts to state it clearly?
    that is why I call you a troll.
     
  222. I'm just a very long time retired mechanical engineer and can directly sense only a small part of the universe around me,I can only understand only part of what I see with my primitive brain and limited senses. Said brain that was developed I believe so that we as a species could survive our environment the same as other species. We humans have gone far beyond that limited need.
    That said I have no problem with people who desire more knowledge. From what I understand science is only a guessing and verifying process in an attempt to better understand that which we cannot perceive with our limited senses.
    Seems to me that to postulate about a creator is a leap that primitive people made long ago and is an ongoing need for some humans. Some people try to control others by claiming to be an intermediary and that it's is my way or the highway causing some to revolt. Until we get absolutely to the end of the scientific investigation this speculation is only a topic for discussion never leading to a valid final conclusion. This is assuming there is an end to the scientific search.
     

  223. Who the fuck cares? Except you. And you have proven yourself to be an intellectually dishonest crazed troll. Give it a rest, whack job
     
  224. You can't be serious.
     
  225. look at the troll and the liar coming out to support Stu the liar. sock puppets thick as thieves.
    this is an internet board ... so I give it the care it is due in my opinion, it was not hard to show stu was lying.
     
  226. let me remind you that on this thread stu first denied saying
    "There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

     
  227. Stu never said that. He knows better. You are a liar and a crazed troll.
     
  228. just keep this in print. I responded to this statement.

     
  229. on this thread page 20 the 3rd paragraph down stu said...

    "So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.""

     

  230. No he didn't. You have no proof. Besides, there is plenty of science showing how abiogenesis happened. Only a fool would think God did it. So of course you do.
     
  231.  
  232. You really need to learn some recent science fc.

    in the past during the arguments I cited noble prize winner Jack Szostak because he stated we have no plausible pathway from non life to life.

    so I looked him up and found this article from 2014. It looks to me like there is still no plausible pathway and he is probably still the top guy in the field.



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/jack-szostak-life-in-the-lab_b_5540478.html


    ...

    Suzan Mazur
    : We may never know precisely the origin of life, but how much insight into the actual origin of life do you think a protocell like yours might give us, say, on a scale of 1 to 10?

    Jack Szostak: We've been working on one part of the problem. Other people are working on other parts of the pathway. I don't worry, at this point, whether we'll know exactly how it happened on the early Earth. What we're trying to do is to work out a plausible pathway where all of the steps seem chemically and physically reasonable, and maybe we'll end up with multiple pathways which are all possibilities.


     

  233. Yes of course you think there is no plausible pathway. You have proved time and time again that you really don't understand science. But you are so intellectually dishonest that it's hard to know what you really DO think.
     
  234. I think it because that is the state of science right now.
    try escaping your ignorance fc.

    Could they prove that we evolved from the primordial soup by chance... yes.
    but they might also show there was a drive for life implanted in the early building blocks as another prize winner in the field has suggested.


     
  235. And once again the intellectually dishonest lawyer misrepresents what Szostak thinks. Just because they currently have no complete plausible pathway it does not mean he can't imagine any plausible pathways. There are multiple pathways that are possible and he says as much.

    There is NO question in his mind that abiogenesis happened which is the key thing here, but of course you are not interested in essential truths only in shifty intellectually dishonest argument.
     
  236.  


  237. 'i dont know' useful trading and life

    keeps out trouble
     
  238. you are desperate and wrong. there is not a complete plausible pathway and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing life (evolved) from non life right now.

    none, zero, nada zilch... as of the last time I did the research.

    if something showed up recently... show us the link.

    how did the primordial soup turn into life on earth.
    did it come from outerspace... was it RNA interacting with a protein? how

    the truth is we don't know... we don't have any science showing it.

    hence you are wrong or a liar or both.






     

  239. There is NO question in his mind ( one of the world's leading experts) that abiogenesis happened which is the key thing here, but of course you are not interested in essential truths only in shifty intellectually dishonest argument as befitting a slimy lawyer.


     
  240.  
  241. Quote from Jem
    "For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."

    Liar

    Quote from Jem
    "you just conceded the point about God as the possible explanation for creation"

    Liar

    Quote from Jem
    "you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake."

    Liar

    Now all that's needed is a cock crowing and there'd be something positively friggin biblical about that :D




    By the same form of perverted logic there is not a complete plausible pathway for gravity and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing gravity from non gravity.
    Yes, you do sound that dumb.

    Dreaming up an imaginary creator and calling it God is not what normal folks call research.

    Like evolution, abiogenesis is science. It fits with everything scientific.
    There's nothing scientific to refute evolution or abiogenesis and no scientific alternatives. There is no other scientifically intuitive plausible pathway other than one of abiogenesis. Fundamentally, chemical reaction.

    Credible explanation only starts where supernatural stops.
    Life scientifically is a chemical process.
    God is just you practicing some brain chemistry. Really, get over it.
     
  242. future currents you have no idea what I think or why.
    I have no problem with evolution. I totally believe the primordial soup bit until I was educated by someone here at et.

    There is no question in my mind abiogenesis could have happened.
    (but that is not the same as saying there is science showing it.)
    you really need to learn some science fc.

    we are here?
    what are the choices?

    1. an outside agent put life here
    2. we got here from outer space (pushing the question down the road)
    3. the building blocks of life were seeded with a drive for life
    4. random chance did it.


    So lets say his opinion is correct. Abiogenesis happened.

    Was there a drive for life in the building blocks?
    This something discussed by nobel prize winners in the field because random chance is such and unlikely explanation.







     
  243. give us the links...

    2. the second quote is clearly out of context as I just made it a few days ago and said you admit the truth once ever five years or so.

    3. your first quote is a correct statement show us the link and I will prove it.
    show us the link to that quote... it should be fun.










     


  244. Numbers 1 and 3 are absurd. But you love absurd arguments.

    Random chance within the confines of the properties of matter and energy is not really random. It's dictated by the physical properties.
     
  245. Apparently scientists have been able to create "mini big bangs" in the laboratory recently. Who knows, if we survive, what our scientists will be able to create in a thousand years?
     
  246. As an utterly dishonest person, you sound like an armed bank robber caught red-handed in the act who can only be heard mumbling - what gun, what bank.


    Of course it is the same thing. Abiogenesis IS science. What else would it be showing if it doesn't show what it shows.
    You really should try to employ a modicum of intellect to at least understand what the hell it is you're trying to assert.

    Abiogenesis wouldn't require "a drive for life in the building blocks". Abiogenesis is all about science and natural chemical reactions. There is no scientific reason why chemical reaction would not be sufficient by itself.
    There is planty of science showing how life could arise from non living matter. There is no science to disprove what abiogenesis confirms.
     
  247.  


  248. ayn rand, queen capitalist & rationality
     
  249. 1. no links no proof... vs the links I presented showing stu lied.

    2. stu bullshitting and playing with words again to misrepresent the state of science.
    whether is science or not is not the issue... the fact is there is no science showing life evolved from non life. its speculation until we have a complete plausible pathway.

    3. no one said it had to require a drive for life. its is a possibility given the overwhelming odds against abiogenesis happening on earth given the relative short amount of time (only a few billion years) and difficult conditions scientists have speculated it was more than just random chance that created it.


    I have no idea why you can't accept simple facts about the state of science and you just have to bullshit over and over. If it were easy accomplished science would have already figured it out

    its really odd you resist simple facts about the state of science.




     

  250. Lying again. There is lots of science showing that abiogenensis happened. You see, early earth had no life, then it had simple life, then it had complex life. That's science.

    It's obvious that you really have no idea what science is. And that you are a pathological liar. Or a lawyer....same thing.
     
  251. think of all the science we would not have if scientists has no wondered why and how.

    if all they did was observe and say " That's science".





     
  252. regarding the lying thing... show us one lie.
    and then explain why you are an agw nutter but as an ac salesmen you sell greenhouse gases 2000 times more powerful than co2.



     


  253. AM HARRIS CHANNEL
     
  254. at 2:30 , 'science is narrow', idiot says, that strength it very narrow need much evidence culled. but "reason" the child or master of philosophy proper, your metaphor? is compelling, unassailable, and 'broad' in scope & force.
     
  255. at 6:35, watch his eyes, he reeling never recover

    mike tyson say, 'everyone has "plan" till punched in face
     
  256. ...in the way theists say " That's god".
     
  257. yes... in a way.

    if you don't count the fact that many scientists in past centuries had been educated and / or funded by the church and that many of the top discoveries have been found by religious people.

     
  258. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What? Science ask how and why. Then they observe to find answers.
     
  259. And then they come up with hypothetical BS.
     
  260. That computer of yours is hypothetical bullshit is it, which scientific engineers will have designed hypothetically, connecting it hypothetically to hypothetical servers and hypothetical science based electronic systems to send your dumb bullshit comment at light speed across the world:rolleyes:
     
  261. And many of those scientists in the past centuries were persecuted by the church when their discoveries didn't agree with religious dogma.

    Nevertheless, when they were doing science they were doing science. When they were doing god they were'nt doing science. They were doing superstition.
     
  262. It's like he's proud of being stupid and thinks knowledge is bullshit. Unbelievable. Guaranteed he's a "Christian".
     
  263. 1. its not even worth attempting to explain to you why a few bad examples does not equal full understanding.

    2. many of the scientists believe they were doing Gods work discovering how the universe works.

    some believed that science would reveal the existence of a Creator.

    And, now we know... that the incredible fine tunings of our universe does... possibly.


    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html



    Introduction
    Fine Tuning?
    Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe. By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.

    Rich Deem

    The recent Nature study popularized in the press regarding the nature of the universe has confirmed some of the original studies involving supernovae type 1.1 The supernovae results suggested that there was a "springiness" to space, an energy density often referred to as "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant," that causes the universe to expand at a faster rate the more it expands. Often described as an "anti-gravity" force, it doesn't really oppose matter, but only affects matter as it is associated with the fabric of space.

    Boomerang
    The balloon-borne microwave telescope (called "Boomerang") examined the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang.2 The angular power spectrum showed a peak value at exactly the value predicted by the inflationary hot Big Bang model dominated by cold dark matter. This model predicts a smaller second peak, which seems to be there, but cannot be fully resolved with the initial measurements. The presence of the second peak would all but seal the reliability of the Big Bang model as the mechanism by which the universe came into existence.

    How does this study impact the Christian faith? The Bible says that the universe was created in finite time from that which is not visible.3 In addition, the Bible describes an expanding universe model.4The Bible describes the Creator being personally involved in the design of the universe, so that we would expect to see this kind of design in His creation.5

    How much fine tuning?
    How does this discovery impact atheists? Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120,6 which is:

    1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

    Atheists' reactions
    What do atheists think about this level of design? Here is a quote from a recent article:

    "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."1

    Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism. "Common wisdom" is common only to those who mustexclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.

    Yet another study confirms the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the Big Bang. The standard inflationary model predicted that the background radiation should be polarized when it interacted with matter, nearly 14 billion years ago. John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, announced the discovery and made the following admission:

    "Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."7
    ...


     

  264. There is no "design" nor is there "fine tuning". You are just lying. Again.
     
  265. do you understand how incredibly fine tuned the standard model of physics is? yet.
    how many years does it take you to understand that no one thinks that precision is random - if there is only one universe.








     

  266. It's not fine tuned and randomness has no place in the discussion. There is nothing random about the physical properties of nature. When will you get through your skull?
     
  267. 1. years of my giving you links and you are still and ignorant troll.
    do you understand that that just recently they found the higgs boson at cern after using over 20 constants tuned to over 20 decimal places... some constants tuned to over 100.
    do you deny science that much?

    http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

    "The constant gardener

    One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

    Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."


    2. if you knew what you were talking about you would explain yourself rather giving us troll bullshit answers. you clearly know nothing about the "properties of nature" or you would explain yourself.
     

  268. No physicists don't need fine tuning or fiddling. You are lying again. There is no fine tuning or fiddling nor do physicists say such a thing. Maybe one does, so what? He's not saying what you wan't him to be saying. You are deluding yourself again. Lying to yourself AND us.
     
  269. fc you have an incredible troll power of blocking out truth and calling your educator a liar. its a bit sick... you should see someone.


    The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1] The proposition is discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism.

    Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellisobserves "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[3]

    History[edit]
    In 1913, the chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942) wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore concepts of fine tuning in the Universe. Henderson discusses the importance of water and the environment with respect to living things, pointing out that life depends entirely on the very specific environmental conditions on Earth, especially with regard to the prevalence and properties of water.[4]

    In 1961, the physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 bookIntelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously".[7]

    John Gribbin and Martin Rees wrote a detailed history and defence of the fine-tuning argument in their book Cosmic Coincidences (1989). According to Gribbin and Rees, carbon-based life was not haphazardly arrived at, but the deliberate end of a Universe "tailor-made for man."[8]

    Premise[edit]
    The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[9]

    If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead ofdeuterium and helium.[10] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[10] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter.[citation needed]

    The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are. The current standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters with an additional parameter, thecosmological constant, for gravitation. However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both quantum mechanics and general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string theory, or loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants may be as small as one. For example, the cosmological constant may be a fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."[11]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
     
  270. Examples[edit]
    Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12][13]

    N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]

    Epsilon (ε), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after thebig bang.[13]

    Omega (Ω), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[13]

    Lambda (λ) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[14] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[13]

    Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[13]

    D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.[13]
     
  271. No, physicists don't need fine tuning or fiddling. There is no fine tuning or fiddling nor do physicists say such a thing.
     
  272. If there are a billion universes, that have been around billions of years, and have been bumping into each other every second of every one of those billions of years, it's almost inevitable that this universe you live in will be created. The multi-verse is a nice theory which can explain such phenomena as virtual particles but I find it absurd to support fine tuning.
     
  273. Okay, now how do we prove there have been billions of universes bumping into each other for billions of years? Is there one bumping into us right now? If so, how can we tell that it is?
     
  274. There's no good reason to assume only one big bang happened allowing one universe to form. Infinite false start big bangs varying in parameters, continuously occurring, failing to survive, until one did expand into this universe, trumps any ideas about a need for so called fine tuning.
     


  275. "reasons are contagious. i give you good reason you helplessly believe."

    i was raised Christian till age 14 my disbelief has caused great family pain. I am rational first,what other choice?
     


  276. 2 1/2 hrs with CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS.

    time cost = 1 bad movie. a must watch for deist & atheist
     
  277. now you all get the point.... our fine tuning is so amazing that it requires
    almost infinite other universes or a Creator.

    you pick...


     

  278. Or neither.
     
  279. you just keep telling yourself that... I wonder why.

     

  280. :D
    at least making posts to answer your own bullshit is one thing you can manage:rolleyes:
     
  281. Not sure Jem has the wherewithall to understand something so essentially commonsensical.
     
  282. the whole point f the being tuned to over 120 decimals places is that it defy's commons sense.
    you have to expand (educate yourself with real science) your mind to understand how incredible it is.
     
  283. when stu loses he starts taking quotes out of context.
    its comes from page 8 of his troll playbook.
    his act is cute...in a childish way.


     

  284. But, this is important, it is NOT tuned.
     
  285. this is important for you fc... you have no clue as to whether its tuned or not.
    go ahead tell us how you know the standard model of physics apparent fine tuning is actually natural.

    the truth is you keep yourself ignorant of the science so you don't even really understand what I am asking.
     
  286. All those invalid conclusions you have lodged in your closed mind is ignorance, not science.

    When in science you have a number which needs explanation, a number only occurring in the first place by doing science from the scientific method, the supernatural is no explanation at all and is not science.

    You might choose a supernatural proposition as an option, but it is still not science and can't ever be.
    When you do consider the supernatural you are not doing science.
    Science is the study of the physical and natural world not the supernatural. It's why science works.

    Scientists refer only to an appearance of fine tuning to emphasize the peculiarity of a number. Dishonest believers in the supernatural claim there is fine tuning because they are being fundamentally dishonest.

    But then as a believer in the supernatural, you're even too dishonest to understand the question or answers, except for your own supernatural one.
     
  287. what a deceitful misleading troll response stu. you took my question and argued as if I was arguing the converse is the answer... which is not what I am doing.


    1., the point is there is no known or observable natural explanation...

    so as you say...

    "You might choose a supernatural proposition as an option"....
    or you might opt for belief in the unobserved un proven almost infinite universe option.

    2. Top atheistic physicists say the universe in which we live appears fine tuned.
    I have given you quotes and videos from at least a dozen top guys.
    why do you mislead about basic facts. I have given you quotes from Hawking Susskind and many others. Rees and other have written books on the subject.

    summary...

    there is an argument/discussion over over the cause of the apparent fine tuning... not whether it exists.

    if you deny that you are a troll liar and a moron.
     
  288. o_O
    wtf?


    Quite frankly by now it must be obvious to most people except yourself, that you don't know what you are doing.


    which would be non scientific, unsupported by any science, with no math and no physics. In fact it's no kind of a scientific proposition at all.


    which nevertheless is scientific, supported by science, with lots of math and physics indicating it to be a possible explanation.

    It is only an apparent fine tuning. It may be the number is an inevitable outcome as Hawking states and therefore not even exist as anything that can be considered as fine tuning, apparent or not, in the first place.

    Whatever you're confusing yourself with, it isn't science.
    You're simply trying to squeeze in a supernatural Creator where science is incomplete.
    God of the gaps.
    It's old , it's crap and utterly dishonest.
     
  289. God didn't create the Universe. The Universe created God. And God has been here ever since.
     
  290. The religious fine tuning claim merely illustrates how imaginary divine creators are obviously unable to create a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.
     
  291. One might consider this to be a failure of imagination, but it is also at least a complete failure to understand what science and the scientific process are all about.
     
  292. see how stu just fooled you.
    he qualified his entire line of bullshit... by putting the world religious in front of "fine tuning". its typical of his crafty troll lies. if called out he denies any intent to mislead.

    but... the claim that the the standard model of physics is fine tuned with some of the physical constants being tuned to over 120 decimal places.

    Stu did not understand that for years here on ET. he argued the cosmological constant could be zero.
    he apparently did not understand that changing the number to a 3 out 120 places out causes.

    you go are leftists who just stick you head in the sand.
    here is one of the smartest smartest guys in the world on this:




    and susskind the cofounder of string theory...






    here is an atheist arguing against the science...
    I find it funny that that the shirt the atheist is wearing is that monkey into man drawing I saw in the NY natural history museum as a kid which I could not find the last time I was there.

    why not? because science has progressed since the 60s and 70s...(although not for Stu and the lefties here.) we know believe man did not spring forth from a monkey but we may have a common ancestor.
     
  293. But it was not fine tuned because there is no fine tuner. "Appearing" fine tuned does not mean it "is" fine tuned nor do the scientists say that in way shape or form.

    Who are you trying to kid jem? Just like with AGW, you are being dishonest.
     
  294. you are a lying troll fool.

    every scientists with a degree from a real school will say...
    that as of now science can not rule out a Creator because we can not see back past the big bang and consequently we do not know what if anything created the big bang.
     
  295. Every single one? Really? You've spoken to every single one of them?

    Fancy that.
     
  296. could you be a more of a douche?
    but in this case... yes... there is not a scientist with a real degree on the entire earth who has ever declared that they know what happened prior to the big bang.

    at this point in time it is unknowable for today's science.
    argue that troll.



     
  297. Stu said it earlier in a post and it underlines the root fallacy of their "scientific thinking" " it can't be science if it involves the supernatural". Yes you are correct, most all scientists acknowledge at least the "appearance of fine tuning", but any answer that leans towards creationism must be ignored despite the facts.

    What Stu and company et al, fail to state is there are a large number of evangelical scientists who support creationism as a viable option. However the MSM will not report it. Doesn't fit the narrative.
     
  298. Science has always ruled out a Creator (God) because a Creator (God) isn't science, you tosser.
     
  299. Which is not what you said: "as of now science can not rule out a Creator because we can not see back past the big bang and consequently we do not know what if anything created the big bang".

    I'm going to guess that you can't see the difference.
     
  300. Evangelical scientists is a contradiction in terms.
    There are no facts in creationism.
    The only thing creationism has to do with science is that creationism has nothing to do with science.

    The universe appears fine tuned like the Earth appears flat.

    Logically, factually, sensibly, reasonably, rationally, it can't be science if it involves the supernatural.

    Supernatural is in the realm of fiction, religion, voodoo superstition and all types of woo in general.
    Hope that helps.
     
  301. the difference is the difference between a real discussion and your douche statement which I responded to in kind.

    as a douche you may not be aware of how douchey your statement was.


    as for stu...

    that is a bunch of troll crap... trying to mix and match logic with definition not meant to be used the way he wants to use it.

    you were caught being a troll again... and I am not going to waste my time trying to discuss whether science is discussing the supernatural when it tries to discover the cause of the appearance of design.

    so here is the summary...

    1. we don't know what happened "before" the big bang so science does not even speak to whether there is a Creator or not... it certainly does not rule it out...

    2. but there is evidence of a creator in the extreme fine tuning of our universe...

    now that evidence could be explained if there are infinite other universes... or something we are yet to discover.

    but at the moment it can be seen as evidence of a Tuner.

    I have presented dozens of quotes from top scientists... and videos... explaining that.


    to deny that I have presented that info from top scientists is to be a troll liar.





     
  302. Please delineate what happened before the big bang?
     
  303. Please delineate what happened before the big bang?
     
  304. Also, please give me an exhaustive list of every life form in the universe.
     
  305. The difference is between what you said and what you thought you said.

    Funny thing about online posting. You can't go back and change stuff (unless you manage to do so before somebody quotes it or your time's up).
     
  306. You are wasting your time trying to claim whether science is discussing the supernatural - period.
    It isn't.
    Science does not consider the supernatural because the supernatural isn't science or in any way scientific.

    You also have already wasted your time and managed to show how much of a fundamentally dishonest person you must be in trying to claim science is discussing the supernatural.

    A Creator that is supernatural is nothing to do with science and so it is de facto ruled out. Just like a Creator Odin, or a Creator Thor, or a Creator Zeus, or a Creator God, before or after big bang, are ruled out. How many times?
    Go away and learn how to think.

    No there is not. There is an appearance of fine tuning. Nothing else. There is no evidence of the universe actually being fine tuned. A particular number in this case is not evidence of anything but a particular number.

    The reason why the particular number is what it appears to be, is what may be explained in science, by science, scientifically. Not by the supernatural. The supernatural is no explanation at all.

    Only by intellectually bankrupt people like yourself who favor settling for ignorance and dishonesty over knowledge.
     
  307. But stu. What about butterflies?
     
  308. I thought I read a few moons ago that Stephen Hawking said there is a 99.98% chance there is no God. So he left the door open. Maybe this has already been mentioned in this thread?
     
  309. I think that was Richard Dawkins wasn't it? Anyway, it's the same thing as saying there's a 99.98% chance of no Leprechauns. So it leaves the door open for Leprechauns. It's the same door you leave open for your brain to fall out of.
     
  310. Ah yes of course, butterfies FC. But that's a whole other kettle of fish:D
     
  311. you go from douchey comment to uber douche in just 2 pages...


     
  312. yea, right... good come back troll.

    arguing a creation could have a creator is not the same as arguing for leprechauns....
     
  313. 1. in short after all you bullshit... the summary is.
    you believe science will someday explain why our standard model of physics appears so finely tuned.

    so you have belief.

    and note... a creator is not de facto ruled out by scientific exploration... its ruled out de jure.
    so once again you get your science, troll ass backwards.
    you know is not de facto... because there is no proof saying there is no creator.

    science tries to find the cause... it prefers to not say... it just happens.

    which is why the guess of almost infinite other unseen universes is so amusing.
    it is the same as saying Creator.

    2.
    as far as your logic... yours is far off the mark.

    according to today's top scientists the fine tunings can be explained...

    by god
    or an almost infinite multiverse
    or maybe by some future discovery... (but that discovery might raise the question why is it that way)

    now... if you deny the above... go see the Susskind tape a few pages back or any of the hundreds of quotes I have presented here in the past.

    3. so now that you were shown to be ignorant on you de facto claim, expect a flurry of bullshit... but zero science.

     
  314. upload_2015-1-3_14-27-40.png
     
  315. stu,

    Q. What happened before the big bang?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. What caused the big bang?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. Did the laws of physics exist before the big bang?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. If the laws of physics did not exist before big bang, how did they come into being?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. How many universes are there?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. If there are other universes, how many are there?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. If there are other universes, is there a race a intelligent beings that have lived in another universe for millions of years through cybernetic immortality?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. If there are other universes, what is the relative size of our universe?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. Is there an end or edge to our universe?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. Are there other forms of intelligent life in the universe?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. Simple statistics show that there is a high probability that other forms of intelligent life most likely exist somewhere in the universe. If there is intelligent life, how intelligent are they?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. What is the cause of fine tuning if it exist?
    A. You don't fucking know.

    Q. Did some sort of entity cause the great bang?
    A. You don't fucking know.
     
  316. exactly...

    yet they argue like they think science says there is no Creator.



     
  317. If you don't know the cause, you don't know the laws.
     
  318. If you don't know the cause you don't know the cause. It doesn't make something else a possibility.
    Not in science anyway.
    In your makebelive fantasies, it may well allow for a Unicorn or a Pixie or Shrek or God to be a possible Creator.

    But not in science.
     

  319. When science doesn't fucking know, it don't do fucking mumbo-jumbo.
     
  320. god, logic and science are product of man mind. science and logic start with little assumption and build from there. science/logic look for reliability/repeatability. more faith in the repeatable, more repeatable more faith in conclusion. evidence finally reach fact. faith diminish.

    when start with faith, end with faith leads no where. when believe despite lack evidence, back to faith.
     
  321. I am just making the point you don't fucking know. I call bullshit on the mumbo-jumbo. Did you read Hawking's recent work? It has tons of conjecture without any scientific proof. He is simply pulling shit out of his ass.

    Similar to the holographic universe bullshit.

    The SCIENTIST that developed the theory of the holographic bullshit came up with theory after walking down a hall and looked at a holographic pic on the wall. You call that science?
     
  322. Science has come up with all kinds of bullshit theories regarding the big bang. Such as physics didn't exist before the big bang. Hawking's dumb ass said that. How the fuck can you know that? He pulled that out of his ass.

    I might be wrong but it looks to me that the big bang and the law of gravity cannot co-exist so they are coming up with all kinds of conjecture they call theories to try and explain it.
     
  323. "It doesn't make something else a possibility."

    What the fuck are you talking about? You just exactly described the process most of the scientist use to come up with bullshit theories. Read Hawking's work. That is exactly what he is doing.
     
  324. You should go tell that to scientist.
     
  325. YOU don't fucking know. You know try to find out.
    does earth revolve sun or that bs from Galileo's ass science?
     
  326. if you have a creation... logically there could be a Creator.

    if the only universe you are aware of seems incredibly fine tuned for life... you have to admit to the possibility it was created by a Creator.

    does that mean there was a Creator...no.
    but at this point in time a Creator is a possibility.

    if you wish to see the science of this...
    study the fine tunings of the standard model of physics...
    which was just used to predict the higgs boson at Cern.

    for instance.. this is similar to dozens of quotes I have provided in the past...

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-the-higgs-nobel-be-the-end-of-particle-physics/


    The Standard Model is regarded as a highly “unnatural” theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist.
     
  327. I don't fucking know what caused the big bang.

    "You know try to find out."

    I do not understand what you are trying to convey.

    So do you think we live in a holographic universe?
     
  328. we kn
    understanding our universe take great effort and time. slow process. patience.
    i think repeatability of physic/mathematic/logic is reliable, as it get, for now
     
  329. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why do you say "Galileo's ass science?" Galileo observe and so he write the planets revolve around the sun. In that time he is persecuted and told to deny what he find. Persecuted from the Catholics. But Galileo is correct on what he see at that time.
    So today Galileo is wrong for thinking the planets are circular, because the planets are the elliptical. Today the science say Galileo is correct to say the planets all orbit the sun. So really Galileo is not the "ass science".
    Galileo open that door to truth. Today they study how the planets all work together from the gravity to orbit the earth. How each planet effect the orbit of going around the earth to all the planets.
     

  330. You are correct.......................you might be wrong. Hawking's dumb ass?

    You're an idiot. LOL
     

  331. in you eye
     
  332. Hawking's recent work is crap. You are a dumb ass.

    His earlier work many years ago did exhibit brilliance. Recent work total and utter crap.

    It is extremely flawed. Anyone with half a brain can tear it apart.
     

  333. Ha ha ha. Yes, you have half a brain and can tear it apart. LOL.

    So we've established that you may be wrong, and have half a brain.
     
  334. Now let's not be too hasty, FC. You have a choice here: WeT or Hawking. WeT or Hawking. Hmmm. Difficult.
     
  335. God is on the ropes

    A young MIT professor is finishing Darwin's task — and threatening to undo everything the wacky right holds dear
     
  336. Ahh, poor Richard wouldn't say there is ANY chance of a God. He does have books to sell just like Stephen does. But I do remember reading the article where Stephen said what I said above in my last post. When I find the article I will post it in this thread. Maybe it has been erased by the Atheist agenda people. And YOUR brain might fall out of a 0.02% hole since it appears to have a closed mind within it which makes it pretty small compared to an open mind which is a lot larger. :p
     
  337. So you think there are no people on the Left who believe in God? I thought you were smarter than that. My bad. :wtf:ops:
     
  338. Has Stu answered any of these questions yet? He's a man of science so he should know the answers right? Maybe we need to talk to Hawking so he can answer these questions. The problems is, he can't. He would fail. Science would fail. A failing grade. Flunkies. But they want everyone to look up to them like they are the most intelligent life form in the Universe. It's a joke. Because they are 99.999999999999999% most likely not. LOL
     
  339. You think this is what the article is about? I thought you were smarter than that. My bad.:wtf:ops:
     
  340. ah yeah...there's always the ...Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawking; wtf do they know... fuckwit argument.


    Dude ok, so you don't understand what science is.
    Scientific theories contain facts. Bullshit theories...well they don't, and so won't be science anyway.

    When you can come to grips with a smidgen of basic logic, get back.
     
  341. Logically, there could not be any kind of a Creator, like a supernatural one for instance.
    But then of course Gravity is a Creator. Natural too.

    Nah.
    Were it the case that life altogether should not be possible, then that might suggest something very weird going on.

    But it's not the case and that it may require no matter how many certain values to be precise in order for life to occur, simply suggests inevitability. That is, given certain natural conditions, those values will ineluctably come about and life therefore made possible. No need for a Creator.


    And what exactly is an "unnatural" theory? Or don't you even ask yourself that glaringly obvious question.

    There cannot actually be anything unnatural (contrary to nature or not in accordance with or determined by nature) in physics. Science is the study of the physical and natural world, not some imaginary ethereal and unnatural one.

    If there were anything unnatural then it wouldn't be scientific. End of story.

    There is nothing remotely being made unnatural about the Standard Model from it having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, or because it is also very precariously balanced.
    Who the hell would say cosmological theory is regarded as unnatural because it has a large number of stars and planets which seem surplus to requirement!

    You don't even need to be a scientist to see how those are not reasons to call something unnatural or even "unnatural".

    Badly used words do tend to end up in quote marks a lot. Pity "authors" don't take the "time" to "use" the "right" word that might better "convey" what they mean to "say".
     
  342. hmmmmmm.....I find it very interesting that the list above only contains white people. What does that say about you? Do you think that only white people are smart?

    Okay, you believe that scientific theories always contain facts. Do you believe that when and if the universe goes into a contracting phase humans will get younger? Please present the facts.

    Please present the facts that there was singularity and that the laws of physics broke down during singularity. Or, do you just have blind faith?
     

  343. Yeah really WTF is he babbling about?

    It's amazing. There is not a single right wing/libertarian(same thing) person on this whole forum that has a brain. Truly amazing.
     
  344. I thought there was one. But I was mistaken.

    Oh well . . .
     
  345. I bet if we performed IQ tests of regular ET P&R posters, we would find that nearly all the "right wingers" have higher IQs than the lefty posters.
     

  346. Stupid is one thing. Drunk is another. You manage to combine the two very well. Congrats.
     

  347. We don't need the IQ test. It's quite obvious from reading the posts.
     
  348. Yes it is. You obviously are a retarded parrot.
     
  349. Which is exactly what an evolved person of superior intelligence would say.
     
  350. Seriously?
    You sound like one of those right wing dimwits trying to wear ignorance as a badge of honor. Or is it that you simply don't know basic shit?

    I don't have to believe a scientific theory always contains facts. It's simple. If they don't then by definition, they can't even begin to be a scientific theory in the first place. duh.

    And if science does not know anything or everything about singularities or whatever, that in itself does not make something else, like god for instance, a possibility. Gaps in knowledge do not make god any more of a possibility that it already isn't.

    Got it? No? then like I said, get back when you have achieved some grip on basic logic. Or even commonsense.
     
  351. So blind faith. You are a mindless sheep. Got it.
     
  352. wow... you are so ignorant on this subject you should be embarassed to have just critiqued scientific american.


    . as far as un natural vs natural in physics... I now realize you are so ignorant on this matter... I have been arguing with a person who has zero understand of the words I have been quoting. You are completely ignorant of this area of science... yet you keep arguing against the scientists.

    really... if you were in physics class your professor would have looked at you like you were a dumb ass and sent you back to high school physics.

    here is a primer...



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics)

    In physics, naturalness is the property that the free parameters or physical constants appearing in a physical theory should take relative values "of order 1". That is, a natural theory would have parameters with values like 2.34 rather than 234000 or 0.000234. This is in contrast to current theory like the standard model, where there are a number of parameters that vary by many orders of magnitude, and require extensive "fine-tuning" of those values in order for the theory to predict a universe like the one we live in.

    The requirement that satisfactory theories should be "natural" in this sense is a current of thought initiated around the 1960s in particle physics. It is an aesthetic criterion, not a physical one, that arises from the seeming non-naturalness of the standard model and the broader topics of the hierarchy problem, fine-tuning, and the anthropic principle.

    It is not always compatible with Occam's razor, since many instances of "natural" theories have more parameters than "fine-tuned" theories such as the Standard Model.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    here is stu's... incredibly ignorant quote.



    And what exactly is an "unnatural" theory? Or don't you even ask yourself that glaringly obvious question.

    There cannot actually be anything unnatural (contrary to nature or not in accordance with or determined by nature) in physics. Science is the study of the physical and natural world, not some imaginary ethereal and unnatural one.

    If there were anything unnatural then it wouldn't be scientific. End of story.

    There is nothing remotely being made unnatural about the Standard Model from it having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, or because it is also very precariously balanced.
    Who the hell would say cosmological theory is regarded as unnatural because it has a large number of stars and planets which seem surplus to requirement!

    You don't even need to be a scientist to see how those are not reasons to call something unnatural or even "unnatural".

    Badly used words do tend to end up in quote marks a lot. Pity "authors" don't take the "time" to "use" the "right" word that might better "convey" what they mean to "say".[/quote]
     
  353. db... once you take out all the typical anti christian crap that your author threw in... and you get to the point..
    good article.

    I for one have been under the impression many top researchers realized there must have been a drive for life put into the building blocks... because it is very unlikely non life organized into life in the short time they had on earth.

    England's idea... seem to be a very good one.
    I would not be surprised if he is on to something.

    But, I would also note... that I do not think it really has an impact on whether there is a Creator because a creator could have put that drive for life in the building blocks.
     
  354. futurecurrents at home

    [​IMG]
     
  355. Good. That's a tiny step. Now try turning away from your mirror.

    Then maybe have another go at being rational.
    Although to be honest, it looks like you'd be wasting the effort.
     
  356. The description Naturalness is used in science and physics.
    So you think non-naturalness, the contrary also used in science, must mean the same as unnatural.:D
    omg!

    Nowhere in physics does the scientific method ever, nor do scientists in any way legitimately consider the description unnatural or "unnatural" a means of depicting or explaining the universe.

    Natural is simply a holdall for calculations whose outcome values don't go to unexplainable extremes. Non-natural for where they do.
    Similarly the description fine-tuning is referred to in physics totally within naturalistic terms.

    It's only outside of science that goofs like you make up all sorts of bullshit about unnatural tuners.

    Non-natural values are not unnatural in physics. :rolleyes:

    Where you going next sparky? Irrational numbers mean math is absurd?

    Your ignorance and purposeful misunderstanding of science and of language is epic.
    Trolling cut and pastes, hoping to curve fit things you don't understand to your own ludicrous beliefs is what's embarrassing you.
     
  357. look at the tweedle dum and tweedle dee giving the thumbs up to the their troll sock puppet buddy who completely misunderstood the science when he critiqued what was written in sceintific american.

    no stu... all the bullshit you can spew in the world can not change the fact... you had no idea what you were talking about when it came to the fine tunings the standard model and the terms of art being used.

    you critique of this quote was astonishingly ignorant...
    "
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-the-higgs-nobel-be-the-end-of-particle-physics/


    The Standard Model is regarded as a highly “unnatural” theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist."

    it was not my use of the word natural or unnatural that set off our "rant of ignorance" it was the quote above.

    don't even try to switch this to me... you screwed that up all by yourself.




     
  358. a comment to dbs article in breitbart...


    http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-dreaming-that-science-will-do-away-with-god/

    ...

    But the real question becomes, why would this be a problem for believers, let alone for God? Why should Christians be afraid of the verifiable findings of science? Many on the Left still languish under the illusion that science and faith are irreconcilable adversaries, while most believers have no problem whatsoever with science and welcome its advances as testimony to the power of the human intellect and the intelligibility of creation.

    As students of history know, the natural sciences grew out of Christian culture. As the sociologist Rodney Stark has so convincingly shown, science was “still-born” in the great civilizations of the ancient world, except in Christian civilization. Why is it, Stark asks, that empirical science and the scientific method did not develop in China (with its sophisticated society), in India (with its philosophical schools), in Arabia (with its advanced mathematics), in Japan (with its dedicated craftsmen and technologies), or even in ancient Greece or Rome?

    Science flourished in societies where a Christian mindset understood nature to be ordered and intelligible, the work of an intelligent Creator. Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root.

    Liberal humbugs like Paul Rosenberg will continue to try to pit science against faith, hoping against hope that they will be able to put “God on the ropes.” Based on the historical record, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
     
  359. Do you let breitbart do ALL of your thinking for you?
     


  360. i watch think of chris hitchens.all that wisdom, lost
     
  361. you are such a douche.... again.
    you know that today's breitbart article mirrored what I wrote yesterday.
    (the part about this idea not being a problem for believers.)


     
  362. You are purposefully misunderstanding what is being said in that article to try and wedge your silly god ideas into it.
    It's dishonest, but that's what you are.

    Being ignorant of science and how it works and having no rational answer to my critique of that quote, all you can do is repeat the quote.

    In science generally, extreme unexplainable values are referred to as non-natural. They cannot be unnatural. Not in science. It's why the author put the word in quote marks. If they are unnatural, it isn't anything to do with science.

    Deal with it instead of brainlessly repeating the quote.
    But of course your religious beliefs won't let you.
     
  363. The problem for believers is that statement applies only when those so called students re-write history.

    Tell it to the Dark Ages how natural sciences grew out of Christian culture.:rolleyes:
    Tell it to scientists persecuted by a Christian culture and the Christian church over centuries, from Galileo to Turing.
    Tell it to all the religious dogmas in religious cultures that have been, and still are, in conflict with science.

    Everybody who is being honest knows how science grew during the Renaissance, massively and world changing-ly increasing knowledge from being based on observation rather than god and religious dictate.

    Then of course everybody knows how science again expanded exponentially during the Age of Enlightenment through to today, when it becomes firmly based on reason, not god, as a first source of legitimacy.
    Those are the eras where science developed as never before, despite religion, not because of it.

    As usual, the dishonesty of religion and especially some extreme Christians are forever trying to pretend to have title to stuff they never owned.
     
  364. And of course there are the Muslims, Romans, Egyptians . . .
     
  365. and I suppose the movement towards individual rights and freedoms that were the Protestant Revolution had nothing to do it

    http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscie...much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages

    That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

    But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.


     
  366. your post manifests your ignorance of the subject.

    I have told you for years... our standard model has constants which are tuned to more than 20 decimal places... with the cosmological constant going out to over 120 places.

    you took years to even comprehend that...as you were still arguing 1950s science. A remember you spents posts and posts arguing the cosmological constant could be zero not realizing that changing the number out at the 120 th decimal place and the universe would cease to exist.

    its no wonder you ranted against the idea of unnaturalness... I suspect you had no idea it was used in scientific american.

    you have no core understanding of a area you have been bullshitting about for 7 years... just because it conflicts with your 1950s random cause world view.





     
  367. How does one even begin to respond to something like this?
     
  368. try it... its called thought...

    those are big picture thoughts... of course a snarky troll like you will be able to find an exception.

    I will help you...

    if you want to be taken seriously... argue who the entire premise is incorrect not by raising an exception but by explaining how the math of the arabs led to western scientific advancements in one smooth line of intellectual evolution or that the early science of the greeks continued in one continuous line... or something worthy of reading for once. (not from salon.com but from real thinkers)

     
  369. So "western scientific achievements" are the only ones that count in your world?
     
  370. Every time this thread is bumped, I see, "Hawking: Gold did not create universe".

    No, Mr. Hawking, but it does keep it going. :D
     
  371. douche bag phoenix at his thought apex....
    its amazing how you just douche it up on thread after thread.

    does someone really pay you to ruin this board?

     
  372. Just restating what you've said.

    You may want to think about what you're posting before you post it.
     
  373. more douche without substance.
    your noise to signal ratio destroys threads.
    good job...

    db

     
  374. So you're standing by your statements that "the natural sciences grew out of Christian culture" and "it was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications"?
     
  375. my statement? I was quoting others... that is why I provide links.

    I found the statement interesting and served my purposes. If you read the quotes I provided.. the statements were backed up to some degree. Again there are exceptions but those are big picture understandings. it would be your job to prove it to be incorrect... I have no desire to prove it wrong.

    but I realize that is harder for you to do than snark and troll and douche... which along with cut and paste is 99% of what you provide.

     
  376. So they serve your purposes.

    Just checking.
     
  377. putting the db in dbphoenix once again.

     
  378. Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned.
    Nothing in science says constants are fine tuned.

    But you're a fundamentally dishonest person so you would say that.

    I'd rather be arguing 1950's science which understands Einstein, than the superstitious non scientific Stone Age bullshit that knows only the deceit and dishonesty you feel so at home with.

    More incoherent bullshit.
    The cosmological constant is currently expected to be zero to within 1 part in 10 120, and the reason why it would have such value is not yet known. That's the tiny gap you're trying to pathetically squeeze god into.

    You making a fool of yourself again, is not me ranting.
    Scientific American have also used the words...science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.
    You going to take those words literally as you want with the word unnatural ? You idiot.

    You're just angry and upset as always that there can't by definition be anything unnatural in science, whether its used in Scientific American or not.

    Talking to yourself won't help you.
     
  379. stu you are an incredible liar and completely ignorant of the science.

    the constants of our standard model are very finely tuned to over 20 decimal places. that you are denying it shows you to be a massive troll liar.

    the video below, also shows how finely tuned we are... even more so than the standard model shows.

    this science has nothing to do with religion... you just too much of a 1950s thinking troll to understand it.



    as far as the comological constant being zero.. you were dead ass 1950s wrong.
    your fudge now is entertaining in that you pretty much stole the wording from from weinberg.

    and note in no way am I trying to put God in that Gap.

    its the tuning that is amazing.



    http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php

    But this means that physicists are left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit. This is an even stranger paradox! Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago [Susskind2005, pg. 80-82].
     
  380. ironically... stu once again shows his ignorance of the science he states...

    "Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned.
    Nothing in science says constants are fine tuned."

    I realize Stu is so under educated in this area... he does not appreciate the fact that science refers to this as fine tuning without necessarily concluding a Tuner.

    However, he is a total dick for being ignorant of the science and calling me a liar...



    https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-mlodinow/

    Barrow and Tipler aren’t using “fine-tuning” to promote theism. They are simply describing some of the fine-tuned conditions in the cosmos that make life possible. Similarly, cosmologist Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal (and definitely not a theist), also uses “fine-tuning” in a purely objective, scientific fashion:

    These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life.

    —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 4 and 22.


    and....


    In The Grand Design, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow also write about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in Einstein’s general relativity equations, calling it “the most impressive fine-tuning coincidence” in cosmology. They go on to describe other fine-tuning problems in cosmology:

    Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.

    —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2012), 160-161.
     
  381. "the constants of our standard model are very finely tuned to over 20 decimal places"

    Yes, you've lied for years just like that...constants which are fine tuned.

    Nowhere in your brainless posts has any reputable scientist from Penrose to Hawking to Susskind ever said constants are fine tuned or the universe is fine tuned.

    The so called fine tuned values have generally been accounted for by Weinberg; the cosmological constant the exception. As long as that remains unanswered, it's the place your imaginary god Tuner looks for room to squat.

    Yes you are a liar, a deluded one and dishonest to the core. Religion does that to people like you.

    "he does not appreciate the fact that science refers to this as fine tuning without necessarily concluding a Tuner. "
    Science refers to this as an appearance of fine tuning without requiring any need for a so called Tuner.

    What Tuner if not god?
    That's a deceit you own which will always make you a liar.
     
  382. Wrong, science has not answered the question as how the universe (one having a so finely tuned appearance) can exist without a Creator .... oh, they are trying granted, but Creationism is the only viable answer atm, but I digress........ that's not science in your view.
     
  383. A Creator is only a supernatural concept. It's not a scientific question.
    Science is not about how a garden cannot exist without some supernatural faeries at the bottom of it. That's creationism; how to not know, not understand.
    Unavoidable and inevitable stand for the natural mother and father of fine tuning.
     
  384. its as if you have such a psychotic break with reality you didn't not even read the barrow, rees and hawking quotes... just above your crazy lies.

    Look you troll moron...stop calling me a liar... when its you.

    if the constants of the standard model were not very finely tuned... many of them to over 20 decimal places... CERN would not have been able to find the higgs boson.

    that is not a religious statement... its fact.




     
  385. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

    In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.

    The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is thecosmological constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; the strong CP problem, and others.

    An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree.
     

  386. Funny you call him the troll moron liar. No, they are NOT fine tuned, nor do any scientists say they are fine tuned. THAT'S a fact. It's just like your troll moron lying AGW arguments.

    You're actually getting amusing now. Like watching the local raving lunatic. Funny and sad at the time.
     
  387. wtf are you talking about fc... here are three from barrow, rees, hawking right below. you can find dozens more from top guys. doing a google search...
    you can watch the half dozens videos I have presented with the top guys on this thread an others.

    you lying ass, anti science trolls.


     


  388. LOL Look at the lunatic ! Just like your AGW arguments, this one is also a lie. None of them say the universe is fine tuned. And you have the nerve to call US liars? Look in the mirror asshole.
     
  389. lets try this again...

    if don't understand how big this number in the denominator is .. I understand.
    but if you don't understand how finely tuned that makes the initial conditions of the universe... you should not even speak on this issue.

    As penrose says... _________________________
    please watch the short video and fill in his exact words. (hint its towards the end).


    Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe"
    Casey Luskin April 12, 2010 8:00 AM | Permalink
    I have no reason to believe that the acclaimed physicist Roger Penrose supports intelligent design. But he's definitely not afraid to take on critics of the argument for fine-tuning. In the video below, he explains that the fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe is this precise:

    [​IMG]








    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html




    and here are the quotes from the 3 people below.
    that is fine tuning...



    https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-mlodinow/

    Barrow and Tipler aren’t using “fine-tuning” to promote theism. They are simply describing some of the fine-tuned conditions in the cosmos that make life possible. Similarly, cosmologist Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal (and definitely not a theist), also uses “fine-tuning” in a purely objective, scientific fashion:

    These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life.

    —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 4 and 22.


    and....


    In The Grand Design, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow also write about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in Einstein’s general relativity equations, calling it “the most impressive fine-tuning coincidence” in cosmology. They go on to describe other fine-tuning problems in cosmology:

    Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.

    —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2012), 160-161.
     
  390. If everyone agreed there is a god, would it matter? He or She clearly does sweetfuckall for us.
     
  391. Except encourage Jem to be closed minded, thoroughly untruthful and a liar.
     
  392. You're babbling in the incoherence of trying to troll the same posts out time after time in your mindless attempt to make scientists say something they simply do not say .

    No reputable scientist from Penrose to Susskind to Hawking and all those in between say the universe is fine tuned.

    Get over it and stop lying. You've already made yourself look an idiot.
     
  393. There is no universe. You are all hallucinating. Ask the Buddhists. They know.
     
  394. no... this has nothing to do with someone believing in God.
    this is just a few crazy atheists denying science and I enjoy finding all the science that shows they are wrong because I love the science.


    I don't care if they don't believe in God.
    If God wanted them to believe, he could choose to make them believe.



     
  395. stu.. the truth is below.

    I have been saying it for years and you keep lying about it.




     
  396. http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/

    1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on

    how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

    Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

    One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.


    This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

    100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

    but instead:

    100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

    there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

    the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

    2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:

    The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

    3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,

    namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

    Penrose continues,

    Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

    Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.

    It is appropriate to complete this section on “fine tuning” with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

    To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, “How could it have ever been otherwise?
     
  397. Yup, if it wasn't like it was it wouldn't be what it is. And it is amazing.
     
  398. Yes you've been lying for years about what scientists have been saying.

    Your so called truth comes from religious apologists -partially quoting here and there in order to mislead - websites like creatorfact :D

    That's not science.

    No one knows, yet, why a certain parameter appears to be at an infinitesimally tiny number and not some other value, say zero for instance as Einstein said.

    So you conclude it must have been Tuned by a so called Creator Tuner. That's not science.
    It's religion. A superstitious conclusion for wherever scientific explanations are incomplete. God of the gaps.

    It's no explanation and it's not science.
     
  399. no moron liar. that is not what I say.

    first of all if you read the articles or wikipedia or anything else I have provided you would understand the scientists know this precision as fine tuning. Its their phrase.

    so A you are an asshole for calling me a liar.

    b... I have given you videos from Susskind and Penrose and others explaining... that as of now there are a few candidates to explain the fine tuning.

    1. almost infinite universes.. or a multiverse is preferred by some.
    2. but... a Tuner is also a possible answers.

    That you continue to deny science... really is disgusting.
    That you pretend I tell you, you must conclude there is a Tuner... is spineless troll garbage.
     
  400. It's OK stu, God knows jem is a liar.
     
  401. You mean preferred by those doing science.

    That's no kind of a scientific answer. By Tuner you mean god. There's your deceit.

    If by Tuner you meant gravity, that would be a scientific answer.

    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Stephen Hawking

    You take an idiomatic expression used in science, (due to certain parameters it's as if the universe appears fine tuned), change it to say something it doesn't (the universe is fine tuned) then add a so called supernatural Tuner into it (tuning requires a Tuner, one possible explanation is a Tuner).

    Religious explanations are not scientific explanations. Religious explanation is no explanation at all.

    Through all your deceit, the untruthfulness you mislead yourself with and the lies you peddle, it's clear you no longer know what you're saying.
     
  402. Why is there such a law as gravity? Did that law create itself? How did it do it? By mere chance or luck?
     
  403. In non scientific matters like religion those questions don't matter. Gravity can simply be eternal. The point is, unlike god it is observed to exist and is the Creator which makes the universe inevitable.
     
  404. Hawking spent time at the pedo's estate along with Bill Clinton and many of the left's top dogs. Just the kind of guy the left looks to when they need answers to life's greatest questions.

    Why pussyfoot around on this. I'm just gonna tell it like it is. The secular view is no more accurate than global warming or 'you like your insurance you can keep it'. The secular method is any means necessary and that almost always includes lying.

    Science has fundamental laws that cannot be contradicted at the drop of a hat or for a secularist to make a point. The law of first cause, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of probability are just a few of them. The left's view is to pretend they don't exist and go right on with their cockamamie theories, which inevitably end with allowing them to stick their little wee wee up their boyfriends rear or some other such thing. You can either have science or you can have your 'everything came from nothing and then it evolved' nonsense. But you can't have both. Because they are not compatible no matter how many times Goebbels laws of propaganda and other attempts to influence the masses are abused.

    You can shut down debate among the weak minded, but there will always be a few pesky people around that don't go along with the nonsense and aren't willing to shut up when you spout scientific nonsense or present rank forgeries for birth certificates or stolen social security numbers. And that really galls the secular left. That anyone tells the truth.

    Well, there are a few of us out here that couldn't care less what kind of infantile tactics are used to attempt to shut up the opposition and close debate and we're going to go right on letting people who really want to know the truth just which side is loaded with prevarications.

    If you can't tell people are lying after they have lied to you on global warming, health insurance, and every other political question, then there may be a need to rethink how you come to conclusions.
     
  405. You're doing no better than Jem. He can't tell what is science from the lies and untruths he peddles about it and you can't tell what is science from a bunch of random conspiracy theories.
     
  406. Well said.
     
  407. The entire agenda of the Godless left is predicated on changing names, redefining words, pretending things don't exist, and most importantly, attempting to ridicule into silence anyone who dissents.

    Take the word science, for instance. Sci-ence means 'to know'. Well, that doesn't work out to well for the left, because it allows religion to speak. So lets just redefine the word. By magic, it now means that which is known by physical evidence. Viola! Cut out the religionists! How easy. Similar to the way homosexuality is no longer homosexuality. It's now gay. Helps the cause to rename or redefine.
    Now do you see why religion is not science? It should be obvious. Because they redefined the word science. How convenient.

    But then how to deal with the physical evidence and physical laws? How do they put one over on the people after they've redefined the word? Answer: same way they do in other political narratives. Pretend that anything that refutes their theories just doesn't exist. Hide the decline, anyone?
    Or take race as an example. There are literally scores of examples in the last year alone of mobs of blacks targeting and beating the hell out of whites, and for no other reason than the victim was white. But it's hidden from all but alternative media and the only thing we see are cases where a cop shoots a black person while the black person was committing a crime, and we told to believe that the cop is a racist. They'll go so far as to continue with the 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative even when anyone who follows the issue knows that's nothing but a lie.
    As so it is with the physical evidence and laws that refute the entire creation/evolution agenda of the left. It's not one bit different. Just pretend the inviolate laws of physics don't exist when they get in the way of the narrative. First cause, thermodynamics, probabilities-----never you mind. Just listen to what 'all scientists agree on', even if it's contradictory to their new and improved definition of the word science itself.

    The left's m.o. is just one giant game of the emperor has no clothes. It's all predicated on people being browbeaten into submission to accept the narrative or made to feel like a kook.

    Too bad it works on so many, but to the left's everlasting chagrin, there is always someone who will step up and say that the emperor has no clothes.
     

  408. Etymological root of the word science: is to separate one thing from another. From the Greek "to split" , Old English: "to divide".

    :rolleyes:
     
  409. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator


    “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

    On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
     
  410. Andre Linde

    http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator


    A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.

    Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.

    “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.

    Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

    Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

    The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

    “For me the reality of many universes is a logical possibility,” Linde says. “You might say, ‘Maybe this is some mysterious coincidence. Maybe God created the universe for our benefit.’ Well, I don’t know about God, but the universe itself might reproduce itself eternally in all its possible manifestations.”
     

  411. And the difference is? LOL

    Do those meanings you conjured up not mean the same as what i said in context?

    And changing my quote. Nice touch. Breaking the rule of et to attempt to make a point. No regard for rules here, there, or anywhere, right? Hide the decline truth by any means necessary?

    Typical of your ilk.
     
  412. exactly... these leftists have zero integrity and they give atheism a bad name.
     

  413. Wow. This is perhaps the dumbest bunch of words I have read in long time.
     
  414. Then there's jem, who has zero integrity and gives Christians a bad name.

    Fair's fair.:)
     

  415. Strike that. THIS is the dumbest bunch of words I've read in a long time.

    Just when I think righties can't get any stupider, one comes along to set a new record. Truly amazing.
     
  416. note... notice stu's misrepresentation about gravity.

    Hawking states gravity can be the designer... in his top down theory of cosmology.
    in which because there are multiverses... and you are in the universe with gravity... it is sort of like gravity created your universe.

    Gravity as creator is subset of the multiverse prong.
     
  417. oh looks one of the band of sock puppets coming out with more of his trademark douche comments.


     
  418. I don't run.

    I amble.
     
  419. I didn't alter any words in your quote or any context of it.
    I selected one aspect from the rambling nonsense that it is. No rules broken. You have a bizarre idea of truth. Apparently it is only what you think it should be.

    And no, obviously the meaning 'to separate' is not the same meaning as 'to know' in context or otherwise.

    What is in context is you did what you were name calling others to have done. You used a redefined meaning of the word science as opposed to it's original one. Oh ye hypocrite!

    But it's ok and understood. Like Jem you're angry and just want lash out against science whatever its meaning, and people generally, in simply hating any stuff that has or does discover no need for your God.
     
  420. That's math. That's physics. That's science.

    That's a lie. That's dishonest. That's you.
     
  421. nice
    :)
     


  422. i applaud reason and scarefull scrutiny of all IDEA

    man mind created science and religion. one invite scrutiny,the other eschew
     
  423. if you even understood the paper I presented from hawking in previous threads... you would understand that you are an ignorant moron.

    you would also know that the the constants of the standard are so finely tuned (at least 2O decimal places) they were able to find the higgs boson at the LHC...



    but I will make this simple with a quote from Hawking... from wikipedia...
    this quote shows you to be a lying ass troll moron jerkoff in this universe and every other.

    " As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[9]"


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe



     

  424. Utter bullshit. Because you read that kind of crap on webgod dot com, doesn't mean it's correct or that it makes any sense. Just highlights your ignorance.
    They were able to find Higgs because values are what they are, not because they appear tuned or not. Idiot.


    So you misinterpret Hawking's words "the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted ... into "are so finely tuned"
    Like I say and as you keep confirming, you're fundamentally dishonest... and a liar.

    While you're quoting Hawking it's funny how you never quote this...
    "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." Stephen Hawking

    Not much room for your deceit in there.
     
  425. its funny you duplicitous little troll that you leave out the context of hawkings quote about gravity.. his idea about gravity is stated withing the context of M -Theory and the multiverse.

    the context stu... you total troll liar matters.


    "Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alternation," they state. "That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way." The answer, the authors say, lies with M-theory. (The M apparently stands for "master, miracle, or mystery". The authors are unsure which.) The vital point is that M-theory allows for the existence of 11 dimensions of spacetime that contains not just vibrating strings of matter but also "point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture." Simple, really.

    Crucially the laws of M-theory allow for an unimaginably large number of different universes. Thus we exist because the laws of our particular universe just happen to be tuned to the exact parameters that permit the existence of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and other key atoms and which also generate laws that allow these entities to interact in ways that build up complex chemical combinations. Other universes are not so lucky.


    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/12/the-grand-design-stephen-hawking


    (by the way this was all predicated on M theory... which is not looking so viable after CERN found the higgs boson. )




     
  426. regarding the fine tuning of our standard model..
    you were right... it was not 20 decimal places... it was 32...

    you lying troll moron... how can you lie about science...
    you need to lie for crazy 50s world view.



    http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

    The constant gardener

    One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

    Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.
     
  427. still nothing in science to say the universe is fine tuned.

    Just you, the deceitful dishonest zealot, insisting it does.
     
  428. Nothing would be this way if it wasn't like this. So there must be a fine tuner.
     
  429. Nothing would be this way if it wasn't like this. So everything is this way because it is like this.
     
  430. would that babbling of tweedle dee and tweedle dum mean that they accept they have been reckless and ignorantly misrepresenting science for years here on et.

    lets review...


    "But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."

    http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

    so that would mean highly esteemed Economist magazine, while covering the finding of the Higgs Boson at Cern...

    stated that the scientists in the field named (the argot) the precise fiddling of the constants of the standard model of physics --- fine tunings?


    note... absent a link to real scientists stating that the precision of the standard model is not labeled fine tuning by scientists...

    I may choose to not respond.
    Stu had been lying his ass off about this for 7 years.
    I doubt he is ready to tell the truth now.
     
  431. Promise?
     
  432. oh look it wasn't enough we got babbling and lying from tweedle dee and tweedle dum, we now have the trifecta with a useless contribution from tweedle douche.

     
  433. Hope springs eternal.
     
  434. Still nothing in which science states the universe is fine tuned , which you untruthfully try to lie about in the deceitful search of room for your Tuner where none exists.


    [​IMG]
     
  435. what is wrong with your lying ass troll brain.
    I have presented this to you a few dozen ways.. including with the word "is".

    Here is penrose again.. he says this is fine tuning - watch it and stop lying you troll.

     
  436. jesus, stfu penrose :)

    is he Buddhist now?
     
  437. your smiley face may indicate you already know this... but just in case...

    he is just about the smartest guy in the world on this stuff... that is all.

    Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.

    Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
     
  438. here is just the beginning of his bio on the site.
    he created that impossible triangle.



    Born in Colchester, Essex, England, Roger Penrose is a son of psychiatrist and mathematician Lionel Penrose and Margaret Leathes,[2] and the grandson of the physiologist John Beresford Leathes. His uncle was artistRoland Penrose, whose son with photographer Lee Miller is Antony Penrose. Penrose is the brother of mathematician Oliver Penrose and of chess Grandmaster Jonathan Penrose. Penrose attended University College School and University College, London, where he graduated with a first class degree in mathematics. In 1955, while still a student, Penrose reintroduced the E. H. Moore generalised matrix inverse, also known as theMoore–Penrose inverse,[3] after it had been reinvented by Arne Bjerhammar (1951). Penrose earned his PhD at Cambridge (St John's College) in 1958, writing a thesis on "tensor methods in algebraic geometry" under algebraist and geometer John A. Todd. He devised and popularised the Penrose triangle in the 1950s, describing it as "impossibility in its purest form" and exchanged material with the artist M. C. Escher, whose earlier depictions of impossible objects partly inspired it. Escher's Waterfall, and Ascending and Descending were in turn inspired by Penrose. As reviewer Manjit Kumar puts it:

    As a student in 1954, Penrose was attending a conference in Amsterdam when by chance he came across an exhibition of Escher's work. Soon he was trying to conjure up impossible figures of his own and discovered the tri-bar – a triangle that looks like a real, solid three-dimensional object, but isn't. Together with his father, a physicist and mathematician, Penrose went on to design a staircase that simultaneously loops up and down. An article followed and a copy was sent to Escher. Completing a cyclical flow of creativity, the Dutch master of geometrical illusions was inspired to produce his two masterpieces.[4]

    In 1965, at Cambridge, Penrose proved that singularities (such as black holes) could be formed from the gravitational collapse of immense, dying stars.[5] This work was extended by Hawking to prove the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

    ....
     
  439. Covered a thousand times before.

    If you knew anything about Penrose you'd know he favors cyclic cosmology in which he does away with any question of so called fine tuning.

    Some (very few) scientists say there is a God, but there is no science which states there is a God.
    Likewise there is no science that states the universe is fine tuned.
     
  440. Penrose said this is fine tuning on the video.
    --- that is proof you were just lying about what I was saying and about what scientists were say...
    -- I have also given you proof that science calls the precision of the constants of the standard model... fine tuning.

    so cease your troll lies.

    ====

    Now if you wish to change this to a discussion about the cause of the fine tunings...

    I am sure Penrose would tell you that his possible explanation is not fact its speculation....he therefore does not do away with the fine tunings of our universe.
    he is providing another prong....which might explain the fine tuning...

    a.multiverse ala big bang and inflation.
    b. Tuner
    c. some cyclical model... bang and the stretch... over and over...
    it seems to me this is also a multiverse... but I do need to learn more about what he says... perhaps you have a link ...
     
  441. Bullshit. Proof my ass.
    Most constant values, except one in particular, are calculated from the values of others, as Weinberg shows, which evaporated any so called appearance of fine tuning associated to them.

    If what Penrose says is proof the universe is fine tuned, then what Hawking says about there is no God, is proof there is no God.

    I am sure Penrose when pressed would tell you that in exactly in the same way, fine tuning is not a fact in science but at the very best, it's speculation.

    It simply stands to reason if you don't know how a value came to be what it is, which Penrose nor anyone else does yet, then you can't say whether it is fine tuned or not.:rolleyes:


    a. math, science, physics
    b. Religion. Not math, not science, not physics.
    c. math, science, physics... conformal cyclic cosmology is not a multiverse.

    You say you need to learn more about what he says....
    If you weren't so dishonest you might start to learn more about everything as well as Penrose's CCC.
     
  442. more twisted troll bullshit.

    1. the video is presented to show you are lying about whether people in Science say there "is" fine tuning. Clearly now, even to you... there are.

    so one troll lie was just countered. you should apologize for lying.


    2. what a bunch of bullshit...evaporated? How the hell did the scientists at cern know where to look for the higgs boson? if the fine tunings of the standard model evaporated? You keep lying your ass off. its kind of funny but it is sick.

    the exact opposite happened at cern when 20 or so constants tuned to at least 30 places... help the CERN scientists find the Higgs Boson. It was an incredible validation of the very precise numbers calculated for the standard model. That you could argue against the reality of that achievement is sick.

    3. hey troll... no one is trying sell you religion on this thread. we are just trying to get you to admit the truth. that our universe has constants which appear finely tuned to many top scientists....(and some say is)

    and that most explain it by surmising there must be a multiverse... but some of the top scientists admit... that a Tuner could be the answer.

    that is all.

    that is not religion... that is the state of science.
     
  443. Fine tuning is just a topic that some have taken up because they need to get published. I'd bet that some of the authors don't even believe what they write.


    As for the extreme number known as the cosmic constant, who cares. There are plenty of extreme numbers in physics, ie Boltzmann's constant, the charge and mass of an electron, etc.., that you're not going to care too much for another goofy number.
     
  444. "we" lol.:D
    "some" lol :D

    One says is - but actually says isn't, by his theory.:rolleyes: You're obviously missing something. Purposefully no doubt.

    Still that backpedaling now will be the nearest a dishonest liar like you will ever get to admitting your deceit.

    The rest of that bullshit you've posted falls over almost by itself but has been addressed and totally ignored by you enough times by now to make it thoroughly boring.

    Suffice it to say scientists at CERN are not relying on the universe being fine tuned. They use the numbers the math leads them to. There is no need to fantasize about whether or not they are so called fine tuned to find Higgs.
    You read too much from all your cut&paste edjukation.

    It boils down to this. There is no science that shows the universe is fine tuned, period.
     
  445. [​IMG]
     
  446. lets try this again... stu you lying troll.... you are the one lying here.


    it is fine tuned... see the words... see the physicist stating there is broad agreement.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe


    Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellisobserves "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[3]















     
  447. and in another article... we see fine tuning accepted by hawking... and the multiverse his speculation as the reason.

    you are such a lying troll stu... how many ways and times can you be shown to be lying... and yet you still do it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

    Carter chose to focus on a tautological aspect of his ideas, which has resulted in much confusion. In fact, anthropic reasoning interests scientists because of something that is only implicit in the above formal definitions, namely that we should give serious consideration to there being other universes with different values of the "fundamental parameters" — that is, the dimensionless physical constants and initial conditions for the Big Bang. Carter and others have argued that life as we know it would not be possible in most such universes. In other words, the universe we are in is fine tuned to permit life. Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions".[30] If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction thereof will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder.
     

  448. Yes, we know jerm. The scientists say that the universe is fine tuned and there is no science showing AGW is true.

    What's it like in your fantasy world? Constructed with semantics, half truths and intellectually corrupt and deceptive ideas. Inflating and twisting small phrases into significance beyond their intent.

    Again I ask. Are you just trolling and who are trying to kid?
     
  449. the difference is the fine tuning of the standard model of physics... has been tested and validated... by among other things... CERN finding the higgs boson.
    a truly incredible feat.

    whereas not a single scientist has shown that man made co2 causes warming... what they have found is that co2 trails the warming and cooling of the ocean.

    see... the difference... its called science vs agw speculation or baloney.
     
  450. lets read this again... so you and stu can stop lying your asses off...
    this is it in a nutshell... you fricken science denying troll morons...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

    Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions".[30] If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction thereof will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder.
     
  451. And yet jerm, counter to what you maintain, science does NOT say that the universe is fine tuned and science says that there is tons of evidence showing that AGW is happening.

    So essentially you are not arguing with science in mind at all. Essentially you are lying.
     
  452. For fucks sakes Jem give it a rest. There is no science confirming any fine tuning. You cannot get your god tuner into science.
     
  453. Stu...
    here are hawking and weinberg showing you to be an sick and twisted science liar... note the part about the incredible fine tuning.

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/

    In his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as “remarkable.”

    “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

    Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of Life” was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:

    1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on

    how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

    Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

    One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.


    This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

    100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

    but instead:

    100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

    there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

    the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
     
  454. This is how jem spends his time, even though he allegedly has a family.

    Makes one wonder.
     
  455. [​IMG]
     


  456. the four horsemen
     
  457. These four have sex with horses? Is this after they get drunk? :eek:
     
  458. Makes more sense this way:

    upload_2015-1-15_20-23-3.png
     
  459. You would have to assume that more atheist's (non-believers) than theist's are into dogs. Like bestiality, pedophilia, homo, ect. You know what I mean. Perversion activities. The opposite of nature. God's nature.
     
  460. The opposite of nature is supernatural abbreviated by the three letters - God.
     
  461. It sure makes sense to trust in God when one spells it Nature.
     
  462. You really can't trust in Nature, though, unless you throw a virgin into the volcano.

    Preferably two.
     
  463. Throw one virgin in... superstitious.
    Throw two in... stupid waste.
     
  464. Especially considering how much difficulty there would be in finding two.
     
  465. We must all do our natural duty to ensure it stays that way.
     
  466. Then there will be even less to promise the suicide-bombers (though the promise does not specifically state that the virgins will be women . . . ).
     
  467. or hillary's husband and his crony buddies on wall street or in hollywood.

     
  468. New evidence for anthropic theory that fundamental physics constants underlie life-enabling universe
    http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html
    For nearly half a century, theoretical physicists have made a series of discoveries that certain constants in fundamental physics seem extraordinarily fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of a life-enabling universe. Constants that crisscross the Standard Model of Particle Physics guided the formation of hydrogen nuclei during the Big Bang, along with the carbon and oxygen atoms initially fused at the center of massive first-generation stars that exploded as supernovae; these processes in turn set the stage for solar systems and planets capable of supporting carbon-based life dependent on water and oxygen.

    The theory that an Anthropic Principle guided the physics and evolution of the universe was initially proposed by Brandon Carter while he was a post-doctoral researcher in astrophysics at the University of Cambridge; this theory was later debated by Cambridge scholar Stephen Hawking and a widening web of physicists around the world.


    German scholar Ulf-G Meißner, chair in theoretical nuclear physics at the Helmholtz Institute, University of Bonn, adds to a series of discoveries that support this Anthropic Principle.


    In a new study titled "Anthropic considerations in nuclear physics" and published in the Beijing-based journal Science Bulletin (previously titled Chinese Science Bulletin), Professor Meißner provides an overview of the Anthropic Principle (AP) in astrophysics and particle physics and states: "One can indeed perform physics tests of this rather abstract [AP] statement for specific processes like element generation."


    "This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature," he explains.


    "Specific physics problems we want to address, namely how sensitive the generation of the light elements in the Big Bang is to changes in the light quark mass m_q and also, how robust the resonance condition in the triple alpha process, i.e. the closeness of the so-called Hoyle state to the energy of 4He+8Be, is under variations in m_q and the electromagnetic fine structure constant α_{EM}," he adds.


    Brandon Carter initially posited the theory: "The universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage."


    Stephen Hawking, expert on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation, extended the dialogue on the Anthropic Principle in a series of papers and books. In "A Brief History of Time," he outlines an array of astrophysics phenomena and constants that seem to support the AP theory, and asks: "Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?"




    (More at above url)
     
  469. Evolution is a big yawner really. As an assumption in half the world's thinking it's messing things up though. A worldview based on a bad assumption is bad no matter how good the logic or smart the people.

    The investigation of genetics of the last few decades has shown that living creatures are designed to NOT evolve LOL When they undergo change they trend back to the original design over a few generations.
     
  470. science has been looking for a unifying theory for decades.
    its one of the four options to explain the fine tunings of our universe.

    you can have faith we will discover a non Creator explanation... its your right to have faith.

     
  471. Inevitable: the science option that requires no Creator.
    Creator: the non-science option that wants a Creator.

    Faith: a lack of understanding when you don't have enough science.


     
  472. Thankfully, many people subscribe to different definitions for that word than what you continually fling about.
     
  473. Factually, those definitions which people continually fling about are nothing to do with science.