It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
So there's 2 options:

1) We know how something works.
2) We don't know how something works.

Now, whenever we want to figure out how something works, we can use 2 means:

1) Science

Science is based on logic, rationality, objective evidence, and peer reviews. It drastically increased our life span through modern medicine, sent people on the moon, allows you POST ON ATS (!!), and makes sure you get from London to New York in hours instead of months.

2) Religion



Yeah, let's use the "people can live inside whales" crew to decide what's rational and what isn't, makes perfect sense




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



So basically what you're saying is - You agree with what I said, that the Universe IS Fine Tuned for life - BUT - you are ignorant of who or what fine tuned it. In other words you have no CLUE, NO Idea, Not a smidgen of knowledge of who or what can fine tune it.

And anyone who disagree with you is -- like you said:




a fool





Very very childish and ignorant





a child who never had a science class


Correct?

Classy dude!

A perfect example of Fallacious Argument - attack the messenger not the message.

But if you have no CLUE, NO Idea, Not a smidgen of knowledge of who or what can fine tune it - will you agree then that it's possible that SOMEONE fine tuned it? Otherwise the opposite will be true - that IT can fine tune itself. A self fine tuning universe. Yes?

Edit:

I need to add this because it's rich in irony.



A TREE can be considered fine tuned because if its density was higher, it wouldn't get water to its leaves. But we KNOW how trees come to be, no designer required!!


Is this an opinion or a fact?

If it's fact, kindly please produce a tree like the sequoia tree - start with just the seed to make things simple.

if you need to use technical publications and drawing, blueprints on how to produce a sequoia seed please do so. You can hire the best and the brightest botanist around. OK - prove that "no designer required!!"

tc.



edit on 14-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Great.

I give you B on 1) Science

F as in Fail on 2) Religion.

Next...



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
Fact that you can't refute a simple truth such as - The Fined-Universe and that Life can only come from existing Life makes your platform weak.

Nope. I don't have a platform. I'm asking YOU to prove those statements. Obviously you can't. Life can only come from life = your opinion. The real answer is we don't know. The universe is the way it is. You keep attributing everything we can't explain to god. That's god of the gaps, not objective evidence. Once you post that objective evidence you'll have a chance, but thus far you've provided nothing but personal opinion. I've already posted the abiogenesis evidence, but you keep ignoring it, when it trumps anything you have said in this entire thread because it's based on reality and science experiments.
edit on 14-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





The real answer is we don't know.


Is that a fact or just your opinion?




I've already posted the abiogenesis evidence


What evidence? What you offered is just unfounded - unsupported opinion -



I consider it a possibility based on the science that it is.


Fact is it's been proven again and again that you can ONLY create life from pre-existing life! It's been done in labs, been done in many many experiments. Thus there's no such thing as life spontaneously appearing from non-living materials. To say otherwise is an argument from ignorance.

Of course unless you have done it yourself - if you did kindly please show it to us.

tc.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by edmc^2
[snip].....

So to test your logic if you really have one - can the Universe be able to Fine-Tune itself?

What say you?

tc.



The one thing that is consistently left out of every statement and argument you make is :

Without the universe being in this state, we would not be here to have the discussion at all.

You also dismiss out of hand the argument from imperfection, which has an awful lot of logic to it.

Seriously if the universe was fine tuned by a creator(s), why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien) ?

That question leaves me thinking there are only two possible conclusions:

a) It wasn't
b) It wasn't created for us.

Both of which are , I'm sure, equally horrifying to you and the other supporters of the idea.

For the record I still do not think it was finely tuned and regard the idea as puddle thinking.



Sorry to say this but imho your in a circular argument.

What were discussing is WHO or WHAT fine tuned the universe because we already know that it is indeed fine tuned to support life.

We also know that the universe can't just blindly fine-tune itself, thus the q - who is responsible for the fine-tuning then?

But let's discuss your question for the sake of argument:



You also dismiss out of hand the argument from imperfection, which has an awful lot of logic to it. Seriously if the universe was fine tuned by a creator(s), why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien) ?


When you say "imperfection" - I assume you mean the inhospitable outer space? Why can't we live in outer space, correct?

Fact is - we are in outer space - riding in our space ship the earth. Travelling at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. Not too slow and too fast, but just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. Interestingly if that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. The result would be obvious.

A sign again of precise tuning, perfect for homo sapians.

But if you want to expand further on what you mean by




"why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien)?"


by all means - please do so.

tc.





tc.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





In other words you have no CLUE, NO Idea, Not a smidgen of knowledge of who or what can fine tune it.



Newsflash: NOBODY does, because there's no objective evidence whether the universe is fine tuned to todays state or not. And that's the only honest answer.





A perfect example of Fallacious Argument - attack the messenger not the message.


I'm not attacking the messenger for not knowing, only because he's too ignorant to see the facts...like you using the same god of the gaps argument and argument from complexity over and over again. That's an observation, not an attack





But if you have no CLUE, NO Idea, Not a smidgen of knowledge of who or what can fine tune it - will you agree then that it's possible that SOMEONE fine tuned it? Otherwise the opposite will be true - that IT can fine tune itself. A self fine tuning universe. Yes?


Again...even if the universe is fine tuned (again, "to what standard is the question"...a SUBJECTIVE question), we don't know how that happened. It might not have been someone...in fact, the most rational guess is to say natural forces are responsible for it, because everything we can explain today can be explained through natural forces. No magic (aka god) required




If it's fact, kindly please produce a tree like the sequoia tree - start with just the seed to make things simple.

if you need to use technical publications and drawing, blueprints on how to produce a sequoia seed please do so. You can hire the best and the brightest botanist around. OK - prove that "no designer required!!"


LINK

Why would I need one of the brightest botanists? A standard one will do just fine


Some are selling them as Xmas trees btw, if it amazes you that much, you should get one



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Great.

I give you B on 1) Science

F as in Fail on 2) Religion.

Next...


That's what I thought too...taking religion to figure out those things would deserve an "F"



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Newsflash: NOBODY does, because there's no objective evidence whether the universe is fine tuned to todays state or not. And that's the only honest answer.



You mean like these NOBODIES?

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:




If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.


Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:




If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.


Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:




"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."


The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States:




The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.


Stephen Hawking




"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."


Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics




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.

...
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.


Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford,




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.)

....

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -..


Of course they are NOBODY to you because they contradict your pre-supposed ideas.

As for the TREE - I said produce a seed from the start - not from an already existing tree.

Remember what you said - no designer required - a design without a designer.?

not

First, procure a decent number of seeds (perhaps 50) from a reputable dealer. I use J. L. Hudson. You need more than a few seeds because only 30% germinate, and in difficult climates up to 75% of seedlings will succumb to disease in the first year alone.


OK?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Do you understand the difference between scientists presenting scientific theories and them stating an opinion?






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.



How on earth is Weinberg saying this evidence of a creator??? He's stating a fact, namely that life as we know it wouldn't be possible if the laws of nature and physical quantities would be different...but at no point is he saying that's the result of a creator. And even if he did, saying so would be a BELIEF as long as he doesn't present objective evidence to back up those claims...something they do when it comes to scientific theories.

And that's the difference between science and belief...something you still don't seem to get after all those threads



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Do you understand the difference between scientists presenting scientific theories and them stating an opinion?






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.



How on earth is Weinberg saying this evidence of a creator??? He's stating a fact, namely that life as we know it wouldn't be possible if the laws of nature and physical quantities would be different...but at no point is he saying that's the result of a creator. And even if he did, saying so would be a BELIEF as long as he doesn't present objective evidence to back up those claims...something they do when it comes to scientific theories.

And that's the difference between science and belief...something you still don't seem to get after all those threads


hahaha.... still can't admit that I'm correct about the Fine Tuned Universe!

so now these gentlemen are either "presenting scientific theories and them stating an opinion" because I cite them as sources to back up my claim of a Fine Tuned Universe?

Classic - yet when you present "scientific theories or opinions" in support of evolution - they are FACTS, I say FACTS!!

...this is too funny.

Anyway here's a short conversation vid of Einstein's "cosmological constant" and the Fine Tuned Universe. Guess who's in there?



Edit:

Some evolutionists agree that the Universe is Fine Tuned and even compounding "Anthropic" Scientists themselves as to why it is.




As for them "saying that's the result of a creator." - in no terms I said that. In fact this is what I said last time:

"Dude I'm so aware that most if not all the people I quoted DO NOT BELIEVE IN God - but the POINT is they believe that -------- the Universe IS Fine Tuned to support life. And that's the fact jack.


Let me state it again - they admit that the Universe is Fine Tuned to support life EVEN though they don't believe in God.

As to why they don't believe in God - check again what I said in the OP. "

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So are they stating "scientific theories" of a Fine Tuned Universe based on facts or just "opinions" with no evidence to back them up?

Admit it man - the Universe is INDEED Fine Tuned to support life. You're just prolonging your agony of....

As for who's responsible for it - you're untitled to you own opinion.

As for:



And that's the difference between science and belief...something you still don't seem to get after all those threads


So evolution theory is science and a fact but a Fine Tuned Universe is just a belief? Is that what you mean?

Did I seem "to get [it] after all those threads"?



tc.









edit on 15-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: add anthropic vid for reference



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   


So evolution theory is science and a fact but a Fine Tuned Universe is just a belief? Is that what you mean?


YES! Mostly because there is NO "fined tuned universe" theory, and the anthropic principle is a PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT and NOT a scientific theory



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


We do not know the universe is fine tuned. We know we exist, we know that an incredibly small portion of the universe is conducive to our existence.
We also know:

The planet we live on is geologically active. (Protip: earthquakes, volcanoes are not life friendly)
The majority of the surface of this planet is hostile to us in our natural state. Plus once beyond the thin veneer of atmosphere it gets even worse.
Coincidentally why do we not breathe nitrogen ? It is after all the most plentiful gas in our atmosphere (fine tuning would seem to logically dictate that we would).
Stars are not eternal, they die : Oops! not very beneficial to life
We have yet to find life, any life or even evidence, anywhere else in the solar system. (let's ignore the rest of the universe for now). Fine tuning would logically mean life would be everywhere.

Ponder that, because if this universe has been "fine tuned" by a creator(s) for the benefit of life then the workmanship is indeed shoddy. There is a reason the habitable zone around a star is also often referred to as the "goldilocks zone".

We are simply flowers in the "crack in the concrete".

"We exist therefore it was all made for us by a creator" will always be puddle thinking.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Logic isn't high up on their list of priorities, at least not whenever it goes against their beliefs. Take those bat# crazy Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations. And just in case the bible doesn't support their bat# crazy ides, that Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish


That's why it's so hard to discuss with those people...using rationality/logic doesn't always work


I mean, I've explained twice now that edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies. His answer? "You're using the same arguments again....so let me ignore that and simply repeat my same fallacies over and over again even though they were debunked long ago"



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
By the way, in case you really care to know why the "design requires a designer argument" is silly, check out this video:




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ



So evolution theory is science and a fact but a Fine Tuned Universe is just a belief? Is that what you mean?


YES! Mostly because there is NO "fined tuned universe" theory, and the anthropic principle is a PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT and NOT a scientific theory



Great - thanks for proving me right again Mr. XYZ!

Due to the unwillingness to accept that you're wrong about the Fine Tuned Universe - you go to great lengths of putting down the very people you conveniently used to prop up your unfounded belief.

Haven't you noticed that majority if not all of the people that I quoted about the validity of a Fine Tuned Universe are either atheist, evolutionist or agnostics? They are of the same persuasion as yours - they (like Neil Tyson) do not believe in an Intelligent Designer / Creator. Yet you vehemently insist that what they said (about the universe) "doesn't matter". You even went to PROUDLY state the opposite of what they said, that there's NO SUCH THING AS A


"fine tuned" universe


unbelievable.

This is exactly what I said in the OP about close mindedness.

But guess what - let me give you another chance to redeem your credibility.

Can the following four fundamental forces listed below exist IF the Universe was NOT fine tuned?


1. Gravity—a very weak force on the level of atoms. It affects large objects—planets, stars, galaxies.

2. Electromagnetism—the key attracting force between protons and electrons, allowing molecules to form. Lightning is one evidence of its power.

3. Strong nuclear force—the force that glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.

4. Weak nuclear force—the force that governs the decay of radioactive elements and the efficient thermonuclear activity of the sun.


If you believe and know they can, please explain how - scientifically that is.

and BTW - just so you know most if not all of scientists shown in the vid discussing the anthropic principle do not believe in God - but they seem to believe in multi-verse. Do you subscribe to that PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT also - multi-verse, many-universe?


tc.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
By the way, in case you really care to know why the "design requires a designer argument" is silly, check out this video:



allllrightyyyy! The SPONTANEOUS GENERATION THEORY - also known as ABIOGENESIS THEORY.

Do you know that it takes blind faith to believe in this garbage?

Oh you do - great, congrats.

BTW - there's no scientific evidence of life spontaneously arising from inanimate materials! But if you have one please share it 'cuz i your cartonish vid - it's just an opinion of the narrator - saying this and that about some chemicals having some kind of get together then kaboomm life came to be.

tata...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I really don't get where you're going with this. There's no scientific consensus about whether or not the universe is fine tuned (that's a FACT), and whether it is or not, I don't see how this would prove/disprove a creator either way.

Oh, and regarding multiverses, they aren't a "philosophical argument", they are a scientific hypothesis. You might wanna read up on the difference between a scientific theory, hypothesis, and a philosophical argument





ABIOGENESIS THEORY


That would be a hypothesis, not a theory


Do you even understand the theories and hypotheses you criticize? Because it seems you don't even understand the very nature of them....




then kaboomm life came to be


You mean like what god did?

edit on 15-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Logic isn't high up on their list of priorities, at least not whenever it goes against their beliefs. Take those bat# crazy Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations. And just in case the bible doesn't support their bat# crazy ides, that Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish


That's why it's so hard to discuss with those people...using rationality/logic doesn't always work


I mean, I've explained twice now that edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies. His answer? "You're using the same arguments again....so let me ignore that and simply repeat my same fallacies over and over again even though they were debunked long ago"


huh...I say again....huh??

...Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations...their bat# crazy ides...Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish..edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies.

What do these things have to do The Fine Tuned Universe discussion?

It's not one of those "fallacious arguments" of yours again Mr. XYZ? - "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):.."

Keep it up and pretty soon you'll have all of the list completed.

tc.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Logic isn't high up on their list of priorities, at least not whenever it goes against their beliefs. Take those bat# crazy Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations. And just in case the bible doesn't support their bat# crazy ides, that Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish


That's why it's so hard to discuss with those people...using rationality/logic doesn't always work


I mean, I've explained twice now that edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies. His answer? "You're using the same arguments again....so let me ignore that and simply repeat my same fallacies over and over again even though they were debunked long ago"


huh...I say again....huh??

...Jehova's Witnesses for example, they refuse blood donations...their bat# crazy ides...Watchtower Society can create as any "add on beliefs" as they wish..edmc's two main arguments are both proven fallacies.

What do these things have to do The Fine Tuned Universe discussion?

It's not one of those "fallacious arguments" of yours again Mr. XYZ? - "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):.."

Keep it up and pretty soon you'll have all of the list completed.

tc.


I was using it as an example of people ignoring rationality and logic...even at the cost of lives. Given that they really do that, and it's demonstrably illogical and costing lives, it's a pretty good example.

And yeah, in my opinion doing something illogical at the expense of life is stupid and pretty crazy.

Having said that, they have the RIGHT to believe whatever they want, and act upon those beliefs...as long as they don't hurt anyone. Preventing your child gets that life saving blood transfusion should be considered "hurting someone through your beliefs". If it's a consenting adult, fine...but doing it to kids is bat# crazy and unethical.
edit on 15-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Great - nice of you to ignore my question. here it is again:

Can the following four fundamental forces listed below exist IF the Universe was NOT fine tuned?

1. Gravity—a very weak force on the level of atoms. It affects large objects—planets, stars, galaxies.

2. Electromagnetism—the key attracting force between protons and electrons, allowing molecules to form. Lightning is one evidence of its power.

3. Strong nuclear force—the force that glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.

4. Weak nuclear force—the force that governs the decay of radioactive elements and the efficient thermonuclear activity of the sun.

If you believe and know they can, please explain how - scientifically that is.

But if you still insist that there's:



no scientific consensus about whether or not the universe is fine tuned (that's a FACT)


kindly please explain HOW on earth the following scientists are not in agreement when it cones to The Fine Tuned Universe - because they do:

notice again -

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist):
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist):
"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist):
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

"The Symbiotic Universe" by George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology.

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics):
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Stephen Hawking:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics:
"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.
...
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. "

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

These gentlemen:


and many more to list here...

..but lastly before I ran out of characters... Albert Einstein's "cosmological constant"

So you say



no scientific consensus about whether or not the universe is fine tuned (that's a FACT)


I wonder why? - oh - is it because "Fred Adams has done a similar study to Stenger"?

Is it because "Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed."

"However, they noted that their analysis does not extend to the supposed fine tuning of the cosmological constant,"
edit on 15-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: vid



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join