Stu - I realize this will not get through to your emotionally protected mind, but try and watch the video again --- see how our universe appears fine tuned and he cites you to rees book. Its pretty funny - that you would keep claiming the idea of find tunings is debunked. Just watch the video and realize you are arguing with top physicists not me. I am just presenting you current videos, quotes and papers.
"Dawkins recommended Rees book in the video." Bollocks. He did no such thing whatsoever. Dawkins is disagreeing with Rees. How the hell do you get to that? He mentions Rees and his book as an example of doing a trick, using models which are based upon problematical values. Seriously, as you can't be just dicking around all this time, do you always go about hearing only what you want to and then claim it to be true, no matter how wrong you are? Dawkin says "There are physicists who will tell you that if you take about half a dozen physical constants, these are constants which physicists have no explanation for, they just accept that these numbers have the values they do, and they then do theoretical calculations using their models, to say if any one of these half dozen constants was ever so slightly varied then the universe as we know it would not be possible. For example if the gravitational constant was a bit different there would be no stars there would be no galaxies the entire universe would just be a uniform splurge of hydrogen for example. They do the same trick for half a dozen other physical constants. A good example is Martin Rees the present Astronomer Royal in his book just 6 numbers." You did this same thing with Susskind. Started putting words and meaning into a vid that aren't there too . It could potentially be a serious illness you have there man. Get it fixed before you do yourself or someone else some real harm.
Of course it is debunked. In science, it doesn't mean what, in your religious ignorance, you obviously think it does. There is no scientific evidence for it. So numbers are what they are because they would naturally be what they are, when there is a universe like this one. Physicists make calculations to show how much variation in constants would still allow both a universe and life in it. Give yourself a treat and get some education on the subject before always spouting off on your same old repeated endlessly delusional bullshit trips of fancy. There is NO evidence of fine tuning at all, so just saying there is appearance of fine tuning is as much use as saying there is appearance of a flat earth.
Dawkins' video spoon feeds this area of science so that morons can understand it and you still do not comprehend this subject. You have just shown yourself to be a moron or a fraud? Its one or the other. What you just claimed as fact is discussed in the video beginning with the Stephen Weinberg section at 3mins 30 seconds in. You are claiming as fact the TOE or Theory of Everything. You could not have shown yourself to be a bigger moron. Science has been searching for the TOE since Einstein and before. It really is time to stop arguing with you... you are a troll because you could not be that much of a moron.
Yes you have shown yourself to be exactly that, not either, but both a moron and a fraud. The fact is, Dawkins does not support what Rees says nor does he recommend his book, both of which you dishonestly claimed he did. Jumping to 3mins 30 secs in the video to avoid that fact doesn't change it or your deceit one iota. Claiming I am claiming something I am not claiming is just more of your usual brainless deceptive bullshit , so yes, you should stop arguing. Stop trying to defend an argument you don't even have or understand, but pointlessly struggle to confuse yourself with. You've always shown yourself prepared to pervert anything at all to maintain your worthless assertions so much so you can't even understand plain english in a video. Just like your imaginary creator friend, there is no evidence and never has been for any so called fine tuning. Give it up would be a good idea.
1. I initially used the word cite... and then recommend. You obviously do not know the definition of recommend if you quarrel with a video. rec·om·mend/ˌrekəˈmend/ Verb: Put forward (someone or something) with approval as being suitable for a particular purpose or role. Advise or suggest (something) as a course of action. Why don't you show us where you get the idea Dawkins does not agree with Rees with respect to the appearance of tuning of the constants. In fact... why don't you explain using science and scientists why Rees is wrong. Using scientists why don't you explain why you claim the constants rees speaks of do not appear to be finely tuned.
Now you're babbling. Dawkins states there are physicists that do a trick also with certain other constants and the ones he points out. It's as clear as day that Dawkins does not in any way recommend Rees's book. Dawkins refers to Rees being one example of those physicists who do a trick with constants, and then merely mentions Reesâs book as the place where he does so. I see you are still trying to misinterpret everything that anyone can see is nothing like you are pathetically trying to distort? You've f*kd up again as usual and by now you really should have learned to stop digging and just live with the fact.
Lol. Can't make me give a wholly inappropriate answer to your ill-advised question so you kick the toys out of your pram. Conversation. Don't make me laugh. I suggest you think of a number you would like me to think of and then go argue with yourself.