Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

LOL No coherent argument, just another repeat of the already refuted - cut & paste trolled out.

Still, you do expertly demonstrate how willfully ignorant a creationist is determined to be.

"Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience"

Indeed.

 

when you explain the apparent fine tunings you will graduate from troll.

Note for a decade you denied the appearance of fine tunings.
Now you admit to them.

that is a big step for a troll.

someday you will understand the word evidence.

 

Dawkins explained apparent fine tuning in the video you produced. He could just as easily have explained the apparent flatness of the earth.
Only you didn't bother with that. You were too busy changing his words.

If you feel better lying to yourself that I have denied something which does not require a denial then you deserve the ignorance you obviously relish in.

Evidentially and scientifically, the universe appears both tuned and designed by the consequences of black holes and singularities amongst other non-supernatural things, of which neither so called design nor tuning would require a designer or a tuner.

What was it you said I denied which I never have?
Oh that's right, I must have done that in the same way Dawkins didn't say what you claimed he did .

 

good luck with that bullshit... like we care about your explanation of the fine tunings. did you get your degree in astrology online or a horse and tent gypsy school?

after a decade of denying the appearance of fine tunings, you admitted to them. That is probably too much truth for a troll.. You may have lost big points in your griefer standings.

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

kudos to ricter for pointing you out.

 

Here is a review of the book cited by Dawkins in the video.
Stu you are one silly little troll.

Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. Martin J. Rees. 1999. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. 173 pages.

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=599


Is human life the result of many coincidences and random chance? Or is it instead the fine-tuning of the laws that govern it which have led to our existence? And if this is the case, what is the origin of this fine-tuning?

These questions may sound religious in tone, questions people might ask if they were struggling to reconcile their a priori belief in a divine creation with modern scientific discovery. Yet it is these very questions that Sir Martin J. Rees, Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor at Cambridge University, asks in his 1999 book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. He asks not from a religious viewpoint but from the perspective of a scientist amazed at the level of organization in the universe and at the same time baffled as to the cause of this order.

He considers six “cosmic numbers” that have determined the way the universe is today. According to Rees, these numbers govern the shape, size and texture of the universe and would have been defined during the big bang. His astonishing conclusion, based on the scientific evidence available, is that these six numbers appear to be unerringly tuned for the emergence of life. That is to say, if any one of them were much different, we simply could not exist.

LUCKY NUMBERS?

The first of these numbers, represented in Rees’s book by the letter N, is the ratio of the strength of the electrical force to the gravitational force. Rees states that if this number were just slightly smaller, stars would have much reduced life cycles: the balance between the gravitational forces pulling stars together and the electrical forces stopping them from collapsing is closely related to the longevity of stars. Without this fine balance we could not expect planets like Earth to have had time to develop. Even the most optimistic of evolutionary theories maintains that life can only arise after a vast amount of time. Without a stable sun to orbit around, the existence of Earth, or life on it, would be highly improbable.

Rees’s second number, ε (epsilon), defines how strongly atomic nuclei bind together. This factor governs the power output from stars and affects the type and abundance of elements that are produced within them. If this number were just slightly different, the chemical abundance in the universe would be radically altered, preventing the existence of the type of life we see on Earth.

The third number, Ω (omega), measures the amount of material in the universe. If this number had been too high, the universe would have collapsed upon itself long ago, all the matter in the universe being drawn back into a single point—a “big crunch.” If it had been too low, stars and galaxies would never have formed. What matter there is would have been scattered thinly across the depths of space. Yet what Rees found is that the initial expansion speed of the universe and the amount of material within it appear to have been finely tuned to promote a long-lived and stable universe suitable for the development and sustaining of life.

His fourth number, λ (lambda), has only resurfaced in scientific thought within the last few years. It relates to an assumed antigravity effect that modifies the rate of expansion of the universe to explain recent astronomical observations. Einstein initially calculated such a force into his general theory of relativity to predict a stable universe, but he later reckoned that the addition of this “cosmological constant” was the biggest mistake of his life. Ironically, many cosmologists now think he may have been right after all. Rees points out that, fortunately for us, the value of the number is extremely small. If it were not, it would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming and, once again, we would not exist.

The fifth number, represented by the letter Q, relates to the degree of structure in the universe. This number, too, seems to have been imprinted into the early universe in the big bang, and it, too, appears to be carefully balanced to allow life to exist. If this number were only slightly smaller, the universe would be inert and would lack structure. A little larger, and the universe would be too violent for stars or solar systems to survive. Instead, it would be dominated by vast black holes.

The sixth number, represented by the letter D, is a simple one that has been known for centuries. It is the number of spatial dimensions we live in and is equal to three: height, width and depth. If the universe we lived in had four spatial dimensions, many of the laws of nature would have to be rewritten. Life in the forms we know it just could not have originated.

UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE?

All six numbers, which relate only to cosmology and not to any of the other physical sciences that have a bearing on the existence of human life, appear to be perfectly tuned for just that purpose. That the fine-tuning is present is undisputed by the scientific world in general. But is this just coincidence, or is it divine providence or something else altogether?

Rees uses the metaphor of Canadian philosopher John Leslie in considering this apparent perfection in the universe: “Suppose you are facing a firing squad. Fifty marksmen take aim, but they all miss. If they hadn’t all missed, you wouldn’t have survived to ponder the matter. But you wouldn’t just leave it at that—you’d still be baffled, and would seek some further reason for your good fortune.”

Unwilling to turn to religion for an explanation of this “cosmic tuning” phenomenon, Rees hypothesizes that a “multiverse” exists—that there are a vast number of universes within which these values may be slightly different. He argues that most of these universes would be sterile, and that just a few, like our own, would be just right for life to exist. However, these user-friendly universes are beyond any kind of direct experiment or measurement by us in our own hospitable universe.

In the closing pages of his book, the Astronomer Royal concedes that science cannot explain this fine-tuning. The reasons for it lie beyond anything within our universe and therefore beyond anything we can ever measure.

Rees acknowledges, albeit reluctantly, the principles of scientific reasoning: he observes that “any good scientific theory must be vulnerable to being refuted.” However, his own “multiverse” explanation describes the untestable and immeasurable. Is it therefore a bad theory? One could reason that any theory that allows all possibilities to be true can justify the existence of anything, however improbable. Surely the conjecture that divine providence, in tuning the universe so that human life can exist, is just as valid a scientific proposition—though likewise it cannot be subject to scientific validation.

Rees ends his book with typically British understatement of the remarkable. He asks, “Should we seek other reasons for the providential values of our six numbers?” These “providential” values, which make our very lives possible, were accurately tuned and in existence from the very beginning of the universe. This scientific fact is astonishing in itself.

While we ponder the reason behind this fine-tuning, and thereby the reason for the universe itself, perhaps it would be wise to take into consideration the following: The apostle Paul, writing to the early New Testament church at Rome nearly 2,000 years ago, stated that “what is known about God is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. For ever since the creation of the universe his invisible qualities—both his eternal power and his divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what he has made. Therefore, they have no excuse; because, although they know who God is, they do not glorify him as God or thank him. On the contrary, they have become futile in their thinking; and their undiscerning hearts have become darkened” (Romans 1:19–21, Jewish New Testament).

PETER ROBERTS

 

Yeah it's funny how often a religious apologists will accuse someone else of the very thing they are doing themselves, and how you as an idiot will fall for it.
You'll have to do better than just display old creationist tactics repeating things that aren't true.

You don't even understand what is being refuted, what has been debunked, or apparently what science actually explains.

There is no science that confirms the universe is fine tuned or that the universe is subject to any fine tuning.
The earth has an appearance of being flat why should I deny an appearance of fine tuning. Oh guess what I never have done. It was just you being dishonest. Again.

I do of course certainly deny there is any fine tuning of the type you are trying to punt .Simply because there is nothing whatsoever making it worthy of not doing so. No evidence not even any sense at all in the theistic assertion of fine tuning.

In physics, curve fitting theories so that they work when they meet a set of given values is described as fine tuning. But it is understood and is known to be problamatic. That is exactly the situation with cosmological constants.

Any fine tuning as it relates to the universe therefore in science, has been done by scientists, not by your magical imaginary creator.
Why not try and and understand what's actually being said and what the argument is for once. It might do you some good.

 

ugghh... same old appearances of something not supported by any scientific evidence.....therefore it must have all been due to a horror story book, fictional characters in it and a magic sky creator man and because a bible thumpers own interpretations say so.

sheesh
It sure sounds like Peter Roberts is doing some 'futile in thinking' on the dark side.

Is this going to be the latest piece of religious bullshit you intend to troll around as if it was science. Mention a scientist name , misunderstand the argument and quickly jump to an utterly irrational conclusion.

Does it really not even occurr to you that if those are the only numbers that allow life in the universe ( and it is a big if ), they happened because all possible variations can come into and go out of existence anyway, so they will come up?
You know, like lots of things do in that way.

No of course not. You just want an invisible friend instead.

 

wow maybe you still do not get it.... first of all Dawlkins dropped the name. I am just educated you with what others wrote. You seem to be arguing with every name in the business.

If you understood the article or the science behind what the astronomer royal, Marting Rees, is explaining, you would understand the guess that there maybe other variations... is pure speculation.

The fine tunings are observed ... the cause of the fine tunings.... or that there are other parts of the landscape with varied fine tunings is unobserved and perhaps unknowable.

Lets go back to what Carr said... maybe this time you will understand it, this time.

"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

"I am just educated you with what others wrote."

Irony. Don't ya love it.
You get worse and worse.


I've already explained what don't YOU get?
The article is a bible thumper's assertions with - unjustified conclusion drawing on what - he says Martin Rees means - by mine quoted edited personal comments -about a given set of problematic constants in theoretical physics.

Just how far away from science do you need to get?

Dawkins mentions Martin Rees because he disagrees with the fine tuning idea and explains clearly why constants are not fined tuned by any description theists give.

So actually it is Dawkins not agreeing with Rees along with a great deal of other scientists who dismiss theistic descriptions of fine tuning simply because they are devoid of all science and reasoning.

That means Dawkins whose video YOU brought up, and other top notch scientists who YOU like to keep mentioning but don't ever deal with what they actually say and explain, are not confirming and in fact take issue with what you keep troll posting Martin Rees or Bernard Carr or others as saying.

So why keep trolling out the same nonsense when you've completely undermined your own argument anyway in the first place.

Because you've already decided you won't get it no matter what the cost.

 

You enjoy pointing out typos... the mark of a troll.

You keep distorting facts to protect you silly atheist view that the universe came from random chance.

Given what current science understands our universe appears fine tuned.

You can choose to have faith in an unproven multiverse, you can choose to have faith in a Designer, you can choose to have faith science will one day develop a theory of everything.

In short the fine tunings are observed... you can wish for a multiverse or you can accept reality.

"In the closing pages of his book, the Astronomer Royal concedes that science cannot explain this fine-tuning. The reasons for it lie beyond anything within our universe and therefore beyond anything we can ever measure."