If a great scientist states there is an appearance of fine tuning BUT...says before or after that remark... "I don't think there's really any evidence of very precise fine tuning of the constants of nature." "Well, the fact that there is such an energy level at just that energy does not require a fine tuning of it " "I don't think it requires a fine tuning of the constants of nature." then the great scientist is giving no more credibility to the appearance of fine tuning than he would to the appearance of a flat Earth. Why are you always trying to spin that insignificant remark into something it isn't. Are your religious beliefs so much out of kilter that you think deluding yourself to this degree will compensate?
Just watch your video again starting at 3 mins 4O seconds. 1. "There is one constant that seems to be fantastically fine tuned..." That is Weinberg... a noble prize winner on this very subject. Telling you there is an appearance of fine tuning. Stu you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HgQBgE_TiHo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Then he is saying there is a constant that is not appearing fine tuned! Isn't it the creationist's argument that all the constants fit into a tiny set of values and therefore the universe must be fine tuned. So as each constant gets to be explained, the fine tuning pseudo-argument diminishes by degree like every other creationist claim. So what's new? Watch the video and listen to what Weinberg says starting at 3 mins 4O seconds, or before, or after, and the only rational conclusion to be made is Weinberg does not accept there is anything to support any claim for an appearance of fine tuning. Chopped the end of his sentence off, your usual style, so to mislead. 1. "There is one constant that seems to be fantastically fine tuned but again we're not sure..." is what he said, ...because, as he goes onto explain... vast numbers of big bangs could be the reason why it [dark energy] is at any speculated values. You missed that. Really? Well do remember not all that long ago in the scheme of things, the Earth seemed flat. Although there again great scientists were saying.. "but again we're not sure". If the cosmological values of the universe are so unlikely, then any other values are equally improbable too. All being equally unlikely, one particular configuration isn't going to be special, fine tuned, or particularly unlikely, just because it occurred. Any other one would be just as improbable as the next. I've seen your scales at work before.
I did not miss it, I left it out on purpose. I just got you to quote a Nobel prize winner... confirming what I have been saying for 5 years. I have made that very statement to you a hundred times over the last 5 years... You just acknowledged that a Nobel prize winner states there is an appearance of fine tuning. For 5-7 years you said no scientists say there is an appearance of fine tuning. Well guess what... you just ate shit.
What exactly is this "fine tuning" you're talking about. I haven't read all your posts so you may have stated your opinion on this. Questions are: what is fine tuning, how was it tuned was it tools, thought, magic exactly how, and who or what is tuning ? A superior race a great magician a panel of universe managers and engineers.. Who ?
Grasping at straws again. For 5-7 years you said no scientists say there is an appearance of fine tuning. I have never said any such thing. An appearance of fine tuning BUT.... is not fine tuning. You have never been willing or able to explain how the appearance of fine tuning (whatever it is you're saying fine tuning is supposed to be ) means anything different to the appearance of a flat Earth. Both have no scientific support. They have that much in common.
It's no surprise it would be troubling to a scientist that an answer may not be forthcoming to a scientific question . You read all sorts of weird things like creators designers magic and woo into that, for no good reason. You like what scientists say so much listen to Hawking. The G word for designer is Gravity. What's your problem with that.
Well if one constant doesn't appear fined tuned then none do. If one doesn't need to be, none of them do. duh Constants with the appearance of fine tuning that don't need fine tuning kinda defeats your now even more silly, as if that were possible, position anyway .