Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. jem

    jem

    1. You lie again. Physicist Paul Davies has stated that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2]
    From Wikipedia.

    2. You draw another useless distinction. When the mulitiverse, is unseen, unobserved, untested and perhaps as unprovable... do you wish to explain the difference between observing the tunings vs vs hypothesizing a multiverse. As of now the multiverse is a total guess.

    hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
    n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
    1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
    2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
    3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis
     
    #511     Dec 8, 2011
  2. stu

    stu

    I don't lie. That's just you again, lying that I lie.

    Relying (you re-lie a lot) as you do on a wiki page where a headline banner says "The neutrality of this section is disputed" and then only on a selected part of some second-hand disputed quote, which says two things at the same time, is not an intelligent thing to do. And why did you not show part [2] ? You do that alot don't you. Leave off bits that don't fit with your silly claims.

    'neutrality disputed' wiki page... in other words - warning - creationist nutters were here......
    Physicist Paul Davies has stated that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". [2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life;

    duh.
    No wonder the page is disputed. You'd have to be completely gullible, like you, to imagine that supposed quote was not being completely manipulated and taken out of context.

    Stephen Hawking does that.Hawking explained the difference between what is only an appearance of fine tuning and the theoretical physics behind multiverses.
    YOU produced the evidence.
    It is one of YOUR "great mind of science" whose work explains why multiverse is not just a total guess, as is the thing you mean by "fine tuning".


    Seriously jem how come you're always so dumb about all this. Is it because you want to be a creationist?
     
    #512     Dec 9, 2011
  3. Oh please... you lie all the time.
     
    #513     Dec 9, 2011
  4. jem

    jem

    You are such a troll.

    1. I am not relying on the page. I am relying on the quote from the scientist. Which is quite consistent with his position since he is well published on this subject.

    2. As to you second point.... exactly..
    Hawking explained that the appearance of fine tuning could be explained by the speculation there is are almost infinite universes. Wow... the fog of your ignorance seems to be lifting?

    As to whether its a guess or not... you will have to understand that in other papers Hawking cites the same work Susskind has done...
    Saying that according to Polchinski.... 10 to the 500 outcomes are possible given M Theory math. It was Susskind who dreamed up that all those outcomes were not just theoretical. susskind decided they could be real universes.

    A total fricken guess.

    By the way stu... you have been taken these pot shot lies for pages now... when are you going to give up lying.
     
    #514     Dec 9, 2011
  5. jem

    jem

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html


    What troubles Susskind is an intelligent design argument considerably more vexing than the anti-evolution grumblings recently on trial in Dover, Pa. Biologists can point to unambiguous evidence that evolution truly does happen and that it can account for many otherwise inexplicable aspects of how organisms function. For those who take a more cosmic perspective, however, the appearance of design is not so simply refuted. If gravity were slightly stronger than it is, for instance, stars would burn out quickly and collapse into black holes; if gravity were a touch weaker, stars would never have formed in the first place. The same holds true for pretty much every fundamental property of the forces and particles that make up the universe. Change any one of them and life would not be possible. To the creationist, this cosmic comity is evidence of the glory of God. To the scientist, it is an embarrassing reminder of our ignorance about the origin of physical law.

    Until recently, most physicists took it on faith that as they refined their theories and upgraded their experiments they would eventually expose a set of underlying rules requiring the universe to be this way and this way only. In "A Brief History of Time," Stephen Hawking recalled Albert Einstein's question "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" before replying that, judging from the latest ideas in physics, God "had no freedom at all." Like many leading physicists at the time, Hawking believed that scientists were closing in on nature's essential rules - the ones that even God must obey - and that string theory was leading them on a likely path to enlightenment.

    Although string theory resists translation into ordinary language, its central conceit boils down to this: All the different particles and forces in the universe are composed of wriggling strands of energy whose properties depend solely on the mode of their vibration. Understand the properties of those strands, the thinking once went, and you will understand why the universe is the way it is. Recent work, most notably by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has dashed that hope. The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10500, give or take a few trillion.

    Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse."
     
    #515     Dec 9, 2011
  6. jem

    jem

    This is what a son a bitch liar.... stu is.
    Since I know stu to be such a liar... I went back and checked on what part of the article had the neutrality flat.

    The neutrality flag he just used as his big argument... does not apply to the section I was quoting from. No one but but stu would write such misleading crap.


    see for yourselves... stu the fraud in action..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

     
    #516     Dec 9, 2011