hey stu troll. 1. Where is your "plenty of science showing life from non life? Especially since you just accused me of misrepresenting your statements. 2. Also could you please explain how natural selection... a theory which deals with living organisms by definition...could have an effect on the evolution of non living things into living things.
One reason why your ignorance comes as no surprise 1. Why should I explain your false assumptions about things I have not said. 2. Not my science. It's science, there's plenty of it , that shows how life can come from non life. What the hell you don't get will be down to the closed mindedness your "Creator" nonsense inspires.
your trolling is now reduced to cute out of context cut and pasting and avoiding giving substantive explanations.
You wish. Substantive explanations have been given to you by myself and others in dozens of threads. Because you can't deal with them, you mis-state misrepresent ignore deny and even alter them to curve fit the ridiculous personal pre- conclusions you prefer. Just like you're doing in this one. Difference being the irrational belief you're always trying to unsuccessfully stuff into science adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge, whilst the science itself overwhelmingly does.
I imaged that galaxy myself with my telescope and a tracking mount I made although the pic did not come out as well as that one. I think about galaxies quite a bit and read books to try to understand them. One interesting tidbit is that the arms of the galaxy is like a traffic back-up of material as it encounters density waves that slow it down. The galaxy is really more like a disc but we only see where the stars are being lit at the density wave. And around 90% of the mass is in dark matter that's holding it together and preventing collapse. But no, the universe was not designed. It just is. It just always was. Because it all was one at one time it all fits together. It "appears as if designed" . The universe was not fine tuned for life. Life was fine tuned for the universe, by the universe . Still, it does seem miraculous. I'll allow that God is perhaps behind the event horizon but history shows God is getting further and further away as our knowledge progresses. Extrapolating this trend out yields a vanishingly small place for God to be.
Stu, you have never provided a truthful explanation. If you did you would admit that many scientists today state our universe appears finely tuned. I present current science Stu, presents 1950s random chance thinking.
Trolling again the same debunked arguments the way you do is about as far away from truthful explanation as anyone can get. Present current science? Lol. Don't make me laugh. You couldn't present your own ass in a present your own ass contest.
Relentlessly repeating pretentious false claims ideas and conclusions by distorting and misrepresenting stuff in science and the things scientists say just to try and prop up irrational personal religious belief, makes him pretty good at being what fc?? A total idiotard maybe.
Stu is now claiming he debunked the standard model of physics. Why don't you tell us how you debunked the finding of the higgs boson without using constants tuned to 32 decimal places. We can send your info into the economist and ask for a retraction and a nobel prize. a. 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." b. hawking.. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf ... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. c. carr... âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008) d. penrose... in writing... http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ penrose video... Summary... I have provided dozens of quotes and videos from other top scientists. so given our current understanding it is widely and almost universally accepted that our universe appears fine tuned. The question is what the explanation... given what science understands now... a. we really are incredibly fine tuned because there is a Tuner; or b. perhaps there are almost infinite other universes... so our is not so special. (note this is pure speculation.) c. we will someday find a reason why our constants are so tuned.... via a theory of everything...(although... then the question might still be... does it take a tuner. d. there are a very small number of scientists who do not buy into the fine tunings..... but I will bet that with the finding of the higgs boson... there are even fewer.