well jem, that's kind of a misrepresentation. most scientists are not even qualified to render such an opinion. There are only a few people around who can calculate such things, but the ones with integrity will tell you that we don't yet even know what the independent variables are, therefore you cannot even ask the question yet.
Wrong. Science evolves. It builds upon. It refines. It most often confirms previous theory. For example ever since Darwin, the fact of evolution has been increasingly proven and refined. Genetics, paleontology. anatomy and phylogeny, among others all independently prove the fact of evolution. Science is becoming logarithmically more robust and effective with each passing year. To ignore that is to ignore all the great things of the modern era. One thing science does not do is rely on one book of a bronze-age collection of myths and stories to describe reality. Nor does it ask us to believe illogical, unsupported assertions. Nor does it require us ignore new knowledge. Faith and especially fundamentalist religion requires us to be stupid. Something I for one am not willing to be.
How many times can you be a hypocrite in one thread? 1) Emotions flying. You'd know all about that: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3498632#post3498632 2) Appeal to authority. You first use an appeal to authority in this thread and then when somebody does the same, you claim it's a fallacy. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3548270#post3548270 3) You then accuse others of being trolls when in fact, the person that most resembles a troll in this thread is you. Personally, I don't know how anyone can take you seriously after you outed yourself as being too incompetent to login to ET with the same handle when using a different computer.
I know what you stated and you were wrong. Agnostic in it's formal term is can't know. The antithesis of science. Science is no more agnostic about a creator than it is agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. Science has no concern with supernatural things. "Most" will also tell you the earth appears very flat. Ok I can show you that.. you can come back and correct my statement when you can show I can't. In the meantime, obviously to correct your statement, I didn't need to do anything other than show you are wrong .
I will never understand the desire to argue something that is both impossible to prove and impossible to "not prove". Just let everyone believe what they want and we're all happy.
byteme - that is a good name for a sockpuppet.. and questionable advice. 1. you seem to have made the fundamental mistake of not discerning the difference between the fallacy of an appeal to authority and requesting expert testimony in the area in which someone has specialized knowledge and experience. It would be like saying I should be a Wizards fan because Michael Jordan is a wizards fan or is not. Vs... asking Michael Jordan if he has an opinion on how to attack a team's defense. (which I presume he must be an expert on.) 2. I did not represent that I did not get fired up when I see misrepresentations of facts or my previous statements. 3. Finally, I couldn't care less if you think its odd that at one point I did not want to login on a computer with multiple users on my Jem handle any more. That was years ago.
Are you accusing me of being a sock puppet? I've noticed you do that when people disagree with you. Clearly in your mind then, it can only be possible for people to disagree with you if they are sock puppets. Well, I am not. Feel free to check with the moderators. I find it interesting though that you were the one who was caught using a sock puppet and are the one trolling in this thread yet you constantly accuse others of being what you are guilty of. No it wouldn't. Indeed, you represented that: emotions fly when the truth is told. I agree with you. You clearly went off the handle when the truth was pointed out that you had previously used a sock puppet yourself. Nice way to avoid addressing the fact that you constantly seem to call others trolls but do a better job at being one yourself.
1. surprise!!!! stu slanting definitions and misrepresenting fact or science.. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic agnostic : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> â ag·nos·ti·cism noun ----------------------- Science is very concerned about how things began, especially the big bang. in absence of proof that it was created by random chance... Creator is one of the best leading explanations....the apparent fine tunings may have needed a Tuner.
jem, you didn't understand what I said. There is no fine tuning argument until all the physics is known. In other words how can we possibly know if something is tuned until we understand what that something is?