I know you have no science. That's what I've been telling you. The only one who keeps attributing poorly constructed and empty statements such as "best minds in the science" and "appears designed" as if they were something they are not, is you. I just call you out on them. But to coin a phrase you are though.. "always overstating your theism and making shit up about science".
but for the fact... I quote science and you quote your twisted mind. here is the pied piper of atheism... laying it out for you. Note... he also throws out the line... he thinks life is much more improbable as well as explaining that some physicists state the universe is fine tuned. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Unfortunately this clip doesn't delve further in to Dawkins' fuller view on the relative probibility fo life but it can be inferred by aa statement he later made. He gravitates toward the multiverse theory which allows for a n infinite number of universes with different constants, different laws of physics, and almost all of which endure for less than a trillionth of a second. It appears that is why he beleives life is improbable. Jem, I think you need to fine tune your position. P.S. Can you beleive that Richard Dawkins and Darryl Dawkins are cousins?
Of course Dawkins is hoping we fine a multiverse. The point is that many observe our universe appears fine tuned. the explanation can be: Tuner, multiverse, eventual discover of a unifying theory of everything... or what stenger says. My new point is. in absence of evidence of a multiverse... it sure looks like were tuned.
It's not a point. Many observe the Earth appears flat. Your new point is no better than your old point. In the absence of evidence... it sure looks like the Earth IS flat... too. The point really is as it applies to one universe or many. Selection bias due to natural causes simply disposes of any so called 'fine tuning'.
...of course the only way to know that is when scientifically proven. Nothing quite does like that good ol' self-correcting science stuff does.
the old "god of the gaps" thing strikes again. "science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into â but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god theyâre arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."
No... and this goes for stu's ignorant comment as well... because the top scientists in the world state that the universe appears fine tuned. That is not a gap... that is a scientific observation / conclusion. Logic dictates that in the absence of an explanation... a Tuner is the most logical explanation.