Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the universe wasn't finely tuned for life then anything could produce life. Then life wouldn't have a narrow set of requirements. Anything could be living.
No. I'm ding. I think George might be dead. But here an excerpt from one of his last major lectures that he gave throughout the 1980's.Are YOU George Wald???
Wow.
The liar can't stop lying!
That's probably because you are overly emotional and incapable of being objective.I'm ashamed of your gender.
That's probably because you are overly emotional and incapable of being objective.
George Wald disagrees...Your reasoning is backwards, Jethro.
The universe isn't finely tuned for ANYTHING. Just that the things which exist in this universe, arose to fit into this universe.
It appears that along with everything else you also DIDN'T take a philosophy class.
Figures. Uneducated doof.
George Wald disagrees...
"There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 1018 -- places that can support life
So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere..."
Wald was a highly regarded teacher at Harvard University for forty-three years, retiring in 1977 as Higgins Professor of Biology. He taught biochemistry, photobiology, and an introductory biology course that earned him a 1966 citation in Time magazine as “one of the ten best teachers in the country” (unsigned article, 6 May 1966). A scientist of broad intellectual interests, Wald wrote and taught on topics ranging from the origin of life to the evolution of consciousness. From the mid-1960s until the time of his death, Wald devoted much of his time to social activism. He traveled widely and spoke out eloquently against the U.S. war in Vietnam, nuclear power and weaponry, and violations of human rights.LOL. Sockpuppet.
LOL. Sockpuppet.
Wald was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1950 and to the American Philosophical Society in 1958. In 1967 Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in Stockholm, sharing the prize with two other vision researchers, Ragnar Granit and Keffer Hartline.And maybe at least one other poster!
Wald’s life changed dramatically after he delivered a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology called “A Generation in Search of a Future” (Wald, 1969). This speech, which criticized the U.S. war in Vietnam and the nation’s buildup of nuclear weapons, was published in periodicals around the world, and it propelled Wald into the limelight of social activism. Over the next twenty-five years he traveled extensively, using his great skill as a teacher to speak out on these issues as well as on human rights and the misuse of genetic engineering. Wald continued to teach his highly regarded introductory biology course, Natura Sciences 5: The Nature of Living Things, at Harvard until his retirement in 1977.What's with spamming the board?
Wald was a highly regarded teacher at Harvard University for forty-three years, retiring in 1977 as Higgins Professor of Biology.
He taught biochemistry, photobiology, and an introductory biology course that earned him a 1966 citation in Time magazine as “one of the ten best teachers in the country” (unsigned article, 6 May 1966). A scientist of broad intellectual interests, Wald wrote and taught on topics ranging from the origin of life to the evolution of consciousness. From the mid-1960s until the time of his death, Wald devoted much of his time to social activism. He traveled widely and spoke out eloquently against the U.S. war in Vietnam, nuclear power and weaponry, and violations of human rights.
Wald was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1950 and to the American Philosophical Society in 1958. In 1967 Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in Stockholm, sharing the prize with two other vision researchers, Ragnar Granit and Keffer Hartline.
Pro Tip: when a troll tries to derail the discussion use his posts against him by continuing to make your points. The troll will be driven mad by anger and eventually go away.
In 1950 Wald was elected to the National Academy of Science and in 1958 to the American Philosophical Society. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Boston and of the Optical Society of America. As a Guggenheim fellow, he spent a year in 1963-1964 at Cambridge University in England, where he was elected an Overseas fellow of Churchill College. He became an honorary member of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (1969).I don't care. I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".
I dealt with the content you posted by him.
Yeah, we get it. He's about 1x10^55 times as smart as you are. No prob.
But not every single thing he said was perfected knowledge.
This is why high school dropouts like you fail when discussing technical topics. You never learned the logic fallacies. Which is why you are trying to nail all of them.
Yes, we know that is what you are. The question is who's?
You are upset. That's understandable.Stop talking to your buddies. I know you NEED validation and only the least educated will do.
I'm not Miketx, dummy. I'm ding. Miketx probably dislikes me more than you do.You should have seen what happened on another thread. I responded to a flame by ding and another poster responded as if he was responding personally. Then he IMMEDIATELY changed it so it would look like he wasn't a sock.
It's hilarious!
Hey let's link to that thread, shall we. You bit the bait hard. It's hilarious.You should have seen what happened on another thread. I responded to a flame by ding and another poster responded as if he was responding personally. Then he IMMEDIATELY changed it so it would look like he wasn't a sock.
It's hilarious!
