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.
The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe, you have it ass backwards which is not logical no matter how you spin it.
The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe.
because the possible number of planets capable of supporting life that could orbit any star would be zero, one, or two (two would require planets in totally opposite and synchronized orbits that could never collide.....if you start with an average of five planets orbiting a star and 4 to 5 of them cannot support life and 0 to 1 can, simple math tells you that there is no life on most planets.........Why?
They do argue. This is just a theory not a scientific theory. But at least you're starting to talk theories and not hypothesis like godB might be wrongBoss: The logical conclusion is, the universe exists in a finely tuned state which is conducive to life.
That isn't the least bit logical.
Really?
The universe exists.... LOGICAL.
The universe is fine tuned... LOGICAL
The universe is conducive to life... LOGICAL
Looks like it's "every bit" logical.
Can you explain your retarded remark?
Nope. Sorry. Every astrophysicist agrees the universe is finely tuned. They can't deny the cosmological constant. They can't deny the gravitational constant. They can't deny the dozen or so parameters which are set precisely so that our universe can exist. They can attempt to explain how this is possible without God, but they can't deny the reality of a finely tuned universe.
As for being wrong, anything can be wrong... even when we're sure it's right. We can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. Reality could all be an illusion.
Your just ignorant.Do I have to prove the lochness monster is not real?And god doesn't exist.
Where is your evidence?
Can you make any unfalsifiable claim and its true until I prove it wrong? Or is your claim just as probable as it not being true?
What are the odds nessy is real boss? Do you think its 50 50? Hint. Its not.
Prove he is real!
If you are going to make the definitive statement, then you need evidence to support it. I'm fine with "I don't believe God exists!" That's not definitive, it's an opinion. You don't need to present any evidence to support an opinion. It's when you make it definitive.. "God doesn't exist!" You need to support that supposition with evidence and you haven't. This is how the most basic science works, so if you can't comprehend that, it speaks for how competent you are in science.
Or is your claim just as probable as it not being true?
Yes. My claim that God exists is just as probable as your claim God doesn't exist. Neither of us can prove our statement true or prove the other statement invalid. You don't get extra points because you value your opinion more than mine, but that's how you apparently think science evaluates things.
It's pretty silly to claim that: "The universe is fine tuned FOR life" when the fact is that the universe is a place generally hostile to life.The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe, you have it ass backwards which is not logical no matter how you spin it.
I've not said "fine tuned TO life." What is the problem with pinheads who can't comprehend the simplest statements? The universe is fine tuned FOR life, which does exist and conforms to the universe finely tuned to allow it.
I don't have anything ass backwards, you have a reading comprehension problem.
It's pretty silly to claim that: "The universe is fine tuned FOR life" when the fact is that the universe is a place generally hostile to life.The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe, you have it ass backwards which is not logical no matter how you spin it.
I've not said "fine tuned TO life." What is the problem with pinheads who can't comprehend the simplest statements? The universe is fine tuned FOR life, which does exist and conforms to the universe finely tuned to allow it.
I don't have anything ass backwards, you have a reading comprehension problem.
Your configuration and invention of a particular set of gawds seem to have misunderstood their job assignment when "designing" the universe.
Maybe you need some new gawds who can get the job done?
You have latched onto a ridiculous argument presented by bossy. As ridiculous arguments go, that's not surprising coming from those who typically further ridiculous arguments.all you needed to do to win the argument was find one who disagreed......you couldn't.....How pointless, as usual. Bossy made a completely bogus argument wherein he claimed all astrophysicists agree the universe is finely tuned. He failed to support that argument just as you have failed to support it.
Your just ignorant.
Nope. We're once again presented with a pointless, bossy inspired "because I say so" argument.B might be wrongBoss: The logical conclusion is, the universe exists in a finely tuned state which is conducive to life.
That isn't the least bit logical.
Really?
The universe exists.... LOGICAL.
The universe is fine tuned... LOGICAL
The universe is conducive to life... LOGICAL
Looks like it's "every bit" logical.
Can you explain your retarded remark?
Nope. Sorry. Every astrophysicist agrees the universe is finely tuned. They can't deny the cosmological constant. They can't deny the gravitational constant. They can't deny the dozen or so parameters which are set precisely so that our universe can exist. They can attempt to explain how this is possible without God, but they can't deny the reality of a finely tuned universe.
As for being wrong, anything can be wrong... even when we're sure it's right. We can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. Reality could all be an illusion.
It's laughable when you goofy YEC'ists rattle on with juvenile "math" that you steal from the Institute for Creation Research.because the possible number of planets capable of supporting life that could orbit any star would be zero, one, or two (two would require planets in totally opposite and synchronized orbits that could never collide.....if you start with an average of five planets orbiting a star and 4 to 5 of them cannot support life and 0 to 1 can, simple math tells you that there is no life on most planets.........Why?
Your just ignorant.
Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.
You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.
Your just ignorant.
Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.
You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.
It's so cute when you religious zealots fall off the wagon and launch into these saliva slinging tirades.Your just ignorant.
Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.
You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.
Your just ignorant.
Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.
You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.
Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago.
Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.
okay....multiply billions of planets times zero......what do you get?......you cannot base "probability" on that type of math.....it is possible there are billions.....it is also possible there is only one.....coming to a conclusion either way is not science........because the possible number of planets capable of supporting life that could orbit any star would be zero, one, or two (two would require planets in totally opposite and synchronized orbits that could never collide.....if you start with an average of five planets orbiting a star and 4 to 5 of them cannot support life and 0 to 1 can, simple math tells you that there is no life on most planets.........Why?
Ah I see. OK so then for every star there's 1 or zero planets that harbor life. So there's life on billions of planets.
I can see where you might find it easier to laugh than to actually read my posts......after all, laughing doesn't require any intelligent thought, and you obviously find that challenging.....It's laughable when you goofy YEC'ists rattle on with juvenile "math" that you steal from the Institute for Creation Research.because the possible number of planets capable of supporting life that could orbit any star would be zero, one, or two (two would require planets in totally opposite and synchronized orbits that could never collide.....if you start with an average of five planets orbiting a star and 4 to 5 of them cannot support life and 0 to 1 can, simple math tells you that there is no life on most planets.........Why?
lol....you two are the poster children of close mindedness.....Your just ignorant.
Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.
You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.
Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. .
The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe.
First of all, you are adding "to life" onto the argument of a finely tuned universe. The things I have been arguing are the cosmological constant, gravitational constant, forces, weights and ratios which are set precisely so that a universe could exist in any material state.... with or without life. It's obvious to me, life as anything like we understand life to be, can't very well exist in a universe with no stars, planets or water.
So let's stop trying to conflate the arguments by introducing new levels of criteria and the false evaluation of conformity. I didn't suggest the universe intended itself to be created for the purpose of life. Only that it does exist in a finely tuned state where life is possible.
The above values are precise and constant. If ANY of these values were off by just a hair, there could be no interacting life of any kind, anywhere.
Possibility and probability are not the same. While it is possible that the Earth is the only life bearing object in the universe, it is not probable given the tenacious nature of life. There are bacteria that live under the most inhospitable conditions here on Earth, deep underground with no O2 and eating rock for food, to bacteria deep in the ocean eating sulfur from volcanic heat vents. The Earth may be the only place with "human" life, but the PROBABILITY is there is life in some form elsewhere in the universe.okay....multiply billions of planets times zero......what do you get?......you cannot base "probability" on that type of math.....it is possible there are billions.....it is also possible there is only one.....coming to a conclusion either way is not science........
