that is one mans opinion. it is not scientific concensus. scientific evidence shows just the opposite. its rather silly to calculate the odds of something happening and then conclude the odds are too low. if something has a million to one chance of happening can it only happen on the millionth try? "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." -Sir Winston Churchill
that is not one mans opinion, its the opinion of all those noted scholars he surveyed. you lose and have been losing this argument for years... you are just too ignorant to understand. random chance creation is a dying idea... in biology and it is pretty much dead but for the speculation in the multiverse and even that began to be very questionable so hawking had to suggest top down cosmology.
more god of the gaps. find a spot where we dont yet have all the answers and find a way to slip "god did it" in. Throughout history, God has been shrinking. The time when the world was small and God was in control is always in the far distant, half-remembered past. The closer we approach to the present, the less common miracles are and the less accessible he becomes, until the present day when divine activity has dwindled until it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent. Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church.
I present scientists and science and you and stu present atheist philosophy dated by a lack of understand of todays science. Even the famous atheist Anthony Flew converted to deism when he recognized that DNA research shows the hand of a designer. You and Stu should reject your ignorant states and learn some science.
have you ever wondered why there is not even one actual piece of scientifically testable evidence to support intelligent design? one would think that all the great "scientists" you quote could come up with something.
wow... you are the biggest clown on the internet. 1. you have nobel prize in the field stating was not enough time for life to evolve from non life on the planet and 2. I have presented you with video tapes from Dawkins, quotes from Hawking and Weinberg and Susskind stating our universe appears designed but... that if you wish to speculate on a multiverse you can explain that appearance... This is the science Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
being the top physics major that you are should be enough for you to understand that poking holes in parts of science that many not yet be complete is not evidence for intellignet design. even a grade school student should know that "it appears designed" is not evidence that it is designed. maybe you could step it up beyond sunday school level for us. what is your best evidence for intelligent design?
How many times are you going to make the same infantile argument. which is also not accurate. You just saw Penrose say that is fine tuning. He stated that the odds against the initial fine tuning are beyond comprehension and gave you the number. He presents you the odds against that tuning happening by chace. . That is not God in the Gaps. That is tuning... which as Carr said in the quote I have given you a dozen times... leaves you with a Tuner or a multiverse argument. Martin Rees wrote a book about the finely tuned Constants. Weinberg states the Cosmological constant looks incredibly fine tuned. You are just being an ignorant troll when you call that a God in Gaps argument. That is a Tuner at the knobs argument not a God in the gaps argument. You saw Dawkins say some physicists state the universe is fine tuned. What do you want scientists to say... it is designed... then you would be arguing they don't know the name of the Designer. It "appears designed" is stated because you may speculate there are almost infinite universes.
You guys have yourselves all fired up, and I want to try and stay out of that. Just want to ask, what good is this "there's a Tuner" stuff, anyway? I mean, who tuned the Tuner's universe? This sounds like one of those creation myths where a a rabbit sits on a turtle sits on a cow. What is wrong with, I believe you called it, the weak anthropic principle? It makes sense mathematically (to me anyway), and still leaves room for something beyond understanding in the creation of the universe...
Its important for this reason.. ET atheists like Stu and nonthinker state there is no evidence for a Creator.. However, the tuning of our universe is evidence of Tuner. If Science some days discovers evidence of almost infinite other universes you could counter the tuning argument. As far as weak or strong anthropic principles... you will have to explain what you mean. I know we addressed this months ago, but I do not see yourpoint now. But I say this the argument is summed up by another scientist here... which I have presented many times and these loony atheist refuse to engage on this science... they just keep on presenting 1950s atheist speak. "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: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât 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.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât 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 âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât 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 So here is a challenge to ets loony atheists.. explain why penrose is wrong when he says our universe is tuned in the video. Explain why rees is wrong. did you see the last minute and a half of the penrose video. He says to those that don't want to hear about fine tuning arguments... This is fine tuning this is fine tuning to incredible precision in the universe.