The subject bashes his hands in front of his monitors and screams, no it can't be. There can be no evidence of a Creator in my universe. Science must be all lies. But he knows the cosmological constant is tuned tuned to over 100 places because Susskind and others have explained it to him on tape. and... as we saw on another thread... As The Economist explains: "One problem [with the Higgs discovery] is that, as it stands, the [Standard] 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%" (p. 72, emphasis added throughout). It is mindboggling to contemplate this incredible degree of required cosmic fine-tuning. Why would scientists be "uncomfortable" with it? Because it logically leads to the best explanation of the factsâthat an ultra-intelligent Mind engineered and orchestrated all of it! http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-higgs-boson-evidence-universes-fine-tuning/ --- The bible -- "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
...already debunked. You trolling the same post again and again doesn't change that. There's no science saying the universe is fine tuned, however much you wish it weren't so. Running off to religious websites looking for your Tuner makes no difference to that fact.
you are a fricken troll we went through this already. you keep claiming you debunk science its entertaining for everyone but you. 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."
Pathetic is saying you didn't give a f#k then keep posting. Pathetic is communicating by emoticon the childish way you do. Pathetic is a wannabe bullyboy cheering in blind support from the gallery for absurd irrational comments, just because they are religiously based. You've already stated your mind is closed, so why don't you take your own advice and actually stop giving a f#k.
Only 32 decimal places!? Why not 64? Or 2 trillion places of pi? Why not a precise - infinity of places. What , it only requires 32!. If the numbers were integers only, you'd be going.. woo..no decimal places... must be fine tuned...must be a tuner. There is no science to say the numbers are remarkable. I've said time after time but you can't grasp it, the term 'fine tuning', is not what you are asserting it is. That much is confirmed in the economist article you just re-posted again obviously without reading it. It states fine tuning is jargon/slang (argot). Is there a reason why you keep posting stuff that destroys your own nonsense. Fine tuning: A term being used by physicists for incomplete science. A term being used by you for an unscientific and imaginary god tuner. There is no science to say the numbers are remarkable just because you want to obsessively balance a bunch silly claims on the term. They've fallen off anyway. You have already been debunked.
1) Pathetic that you either cannot read or can't understand what you read. 2) emoticons are childish? Laughter is good medicine. 3) Seriously you can't even admit to the possibility of a creator, so who's blind and irrational? 4) No you stated that ya dishonest lil cretin.