Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

Stu we have not even proved there is a tuner. You are rushing from evidence to a conclusion to meta physics. Metaphysics is fun but lets separate that from the science I have been discussing.

Are you letting your emotions get the best of you?

Wondering about who tuned the tuner?

To make that question worthwhile you would have to prove time existed "prior" to the big bang. without time there may be no "before". Hence no need for a Creator of a Creator. We discussed this years ago Stu. Focus on the science this metaphysics makes you too emotional. Just accept the science or debate the science with real science and real authorities. I know you can do it stu. If you go on the internet you can find physicists who are not as impressed with the AP argument as some of the scientists I quote.

( you could suggest you favor the steady state model or whatever. ) I do not mind a good discussion... but you have proven to be so deceptive I must make you qualify your responses.

For now stu lets stick with the scientists and forget about your wacky prose.



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.”



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

 

========================
Good , powerful points, thanks,Wallet.
And that's unusually up to date.

The well written points ''futile in their thinking '' means unable even to make a good choice, even when it's in their best interest.

 

====================
K007;
Some places are better to look than others. As far as ''buy into...'';
frankly I seldom buy a book i have already in my library-
unless its for a gift.

Also , some have an obvious bias, some one got rather upset concerning a Christian M.D. Quite upset because the Christian doctor was against smoking even though the Bible does not specifically forbid that.

Medical science[health, healing, creation miracles...] are a help to some.Reginald Cherry M.D. books are quite brillant & helpful.

 

I'm wondering or rather sensing you've changed your tune after years of screaming Goddidit.

What !?
Having to prove time existed before big bang is irrelevant.

You're the one suggesting it's either a tuner or multiverse , or rather your "top scientists", who you blindly cut & paste out of all context and understanding of what it means.

If you really want to debate and say tuner , then you need to answer the most obvious next begging question that produces, If things like a universe need a tuner, things that tune the universe need a tuner too, and so on, ad infinitum.

You've been trying to dodge this for years in hoping to make it seem like there could be a gap for a so called creator to sit in, and you failed. And now it is beginning to sound like it.

If you want to debate the science, then stop trying to debate AP and fine tuning. It isn’t science.

Unlike yourself , Bernard Carr as an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London will be well aware of the fact .So why not try and first understand that, instead of just repeating the same thing off of your philosophical joo joo site over and over like a mindless automaton ?

There has never ever been in the history of mankind, any substantive reason other than ignorance and superstition which a lack of knowledge brings, to assume your "creator" is anything else but the universe itself.

 

your arguments amount to abdication of intelligence.

Here is what scientist who understands the physics says.

Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...

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.”



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

 

There, fixed that for you.

 

Like I've said before, a universe of time/mass/diversity is a self-concept. Ignorance is a self-imposed condition that precedes its making, for the purpose of having an experience. Anyone whose existence appears to have its genesis in a universe of time/mass/diversity is complicit in the experience of being one's own creator.

 

in short your religion my be summed up as follows...

I think I am not, therefore I AM.

 

Evolution will undoubtedly be proven incomplete, but not likely wrong.

At the heart of evolution is the idea that life adapts... Few would argue otherwise.

As for the origins of said life ... Let the secular evolutionists dwell in their earthly hell surrounded by their fellow leeches and parasites (parasitic, as they've come to understand humanity as being) ...

free-will, It will always have my vote


(although .... LOL )

 

"Evolution will undoubtedly be proven incomplete, but not likely wrong."

Any proof that God is wrong?

Didn't think so...