Yes you are. You can watch a vid and deny what's said in it and then distort it's meaning on top of that. You are indeed incredibly full of it.
do you enjoy childish out of context quoting? Is that all you can do when challenged by science. we already taught you in previous threads... dawkins accepts the fact the universe appears fine tuned.... in fact on page 157 to 158 of his most recent book... he states physics does not yet have an answer to the appearance of design. I have also seen him say that in a lecture at ucsd And Dr. Francis Collins stated Dawkins agrees the fine tuning of the constants is the biggest challenge for atheists. I gave you that cite earlier in this thread.
"we" who is "we". Youâve demonstrated how you can't even watch and listen to a short vid without mashing up the words, content and meaning in it. How are you ever going to understand the issues properly from trying to read a book which I very much doubt you ever have. Dawkins says in the vid, the fine tuning argument, or the cosmic anthropic principle, is a profoundly atheistic argument. So it's hardly going to be something he sees as a challenge for atheists. It cannot be said the universe appears fine tuned without by the same argument acknowledging the Earth appears flat. The constants only appear by unsupportable assumption to have to be around certain values just as the Earth unsupportable assumption to be flat. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that states the universe must be at given values. In fact a number of physicists suggest it is incorrect to say they cannot be different and give examples of how much different constants wouldn't mean, no universe or no life in it. The so called fine tuning just doesn't stand up at all , but you hang on to it like you do with make believe tuners and creators. It's basically an infantile thing for a supposed adult to do.
you still have not explained your science. you made ridiculous claims about the numbers naturally being this way... now back that statement up with some science and somehow distinguish your idea from the toe.
Not explained my science!!! You must be joking. How can anyone explain to someone who can't even comprehend straightforward sentences in English given by people like Dawkins and Susskind for example. Or who demands a specific answer to a completely pointless question. Until you can grasp the basic common sense of an argument you won't be making it to understanding any science in it. There is nothing magical about extraordinarily improbable events happening. They happen all the time. So even on a most basic level, whether you consider chances on a universe with its constants improbable or not, astronomical improbabilities happen every day , so no real reason there for so called fine tuning or magic tuners.
what a fairy response. Dawkins states in the videos physicists state the constants are fine tuned. He acknowledges in his book and in person that the fine tunings cuase problems for atheists. That is plain english. Susskind has stated that if science disproves what he calls is the landscape or multiverse... it will be hardpressed to answer the IDers. so you basically just pulled your same old troll bullshit. Shall I bring out the Carr quote, the arno penzias quote, the quote from Rees, the quote from just about every physicist except stenger acknowledging the fine tunings. Go ahead and explain the appearance of fine tunings... don't be a fairy... explain it.... have the balls to engage in argument based on science instead of your troll bullshit.
Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places." This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 1000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000, but instead: 1000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form... or Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment." (quoted earlier in this thread)
Engage in argument, with you!? I doubt you could hold an honest conversation if your life depended on it. Even in the full face of evidence supplied by yourself, you can't be honest. You might ask yourself why you need to be so untruthful to say "Dawkins states in the videos physicists state the constants are fine tuned." when Dawkins states no such thing. You've previously tried to give the appearance Susskind said things in his video about intelligent design which he didn't. Funny how some theists rely so much on appearances. Even dishonest ones. Make stuff up because you just can't be truthful is that it? There is much fascinating and awe inspiring science explaining the real and possible workings of the universe and how it came about, without the necessity to invent pointless false assertions about appearances of fine tunings or appearances of flat earths. Appearances of fine tuning won't do. There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it. That'll be why misrepresenting what's actually being said will be all you know about it.
Idiot.. How many times have you trolled that rubbish out now. Rambling pseudoscience made up by religious nut heads misconstruing what particular scientists are supposed to have said, is not science. It is though what you have done with Dawkins's comments in the video. Dealing in dishonest ignorance.
How many times do you have to be hit in the head with the science before you stop being a troll. Weinberg Rees and Penrose are prize winning scientists. Dismissing their arguments but calling them religious nuts is really strange (its really sad to say that about weinberg and rees...I do not know about penrose) ... even for a troll. Rees, the astronomer royal wrote a book about how six of the constants are so finely tuned. Weinberg a nobel prize winner explains that the cosmological constant is so finely tuned it amazes him. These constants are so finely tuned it could not have happened by random chance. It requires an explanation. An explanation which you obviously can't grasp and scientists who are atheists are still search for. ---- As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe Now Hawkins promotes the multiverse idea to explain the fine tunings.. As do - Rees Dawkins and Susskind. Any non troll would realize that the multiverse requires just as much faith as faith in a Tuner.