Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[PoliticalChic]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

 

[Taz]

Every civilization insists on truth and honesty and every one, atheist or not, has failed to provide it. Including ours.

That'not at all true.
Might makes Right for most civilizations.
The overwhelming number of people on earth today do not live in just societies; we just ignore them for our own comfort.

Can you name a civilization that espoused dishonesty? Every civilization believes in "Might makes Right" and justice, they just all disagree on what exactly that means.

Do we live in a 'just' society? Your answer may differ from someone in the BLM movement.

Have you ever looked at the Muslims or the Chinese or the Hindus?
Totalitarianism in the mask of Truth is bull crap.

Do I live in a "Just Society"?
As a Jew I live amongst people who don't condemn you to a life of slavery based on genetics or a Bible that allows you to execute someone for wearing the wrong headgear.
Jews came to the horrendous US and couldn't get gainful employment so we started our own businesses and the horrendous US didn't burn our stores to the ground.

You better take a closer look at how you use your Liberal brain.

You don't speak for everyone. I doubt Muslims or Hindus would agree with your judgement.

You should know from your own story that no society is 100% just and different people in a society are often treated differently.

Of course barbarians wouldn't agree with me; they would execute me and you would consider that just.
And that, my friend, is your problem, not mine.

Try reading my post again.

Which one? They're all so stunning!!

The one I posted for you...the mentally retarded.

So why did god make me mentally retarded?

So nice people can help you.
You probably misused your intelligence in a prior lifetime and were brought, unable to hurt anyone physically, monetarily, etc, and were brought back to gain acceptance to an eternal spiritual existence.
The people who are taking care of you also needed to make amends for being selfish and will now earn eternal spiritual existence.

Any other questions?

So you believe in re-incarnation? Is that part of god's plan?

Yes.
God is infinite.
The vision of god given to you was of a man who died and became a god.
We are, in our true essence, primarily spiritual beings.

Because I believe the only real evidence is for re-incarnation. So we share that mental retardation?

 

[Indeependent]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Another factor in getting scientists to recognize God is scientists who are religious and know what they're talking about.
Thanks to current technology, it's not so easy to shut down the religious scientists.

 

[Taz]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

 

[Hollie]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

7. There's no evidence of your gods ''fine tuning'' anything.

8. I note you use the " fine tuning" slogan as an attribute to describe our solar system / universe. All of your slogans are typical at any one of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. "Fine tuning" is rather an odd description in view of planetary bombardment by comets and meteors, planetary collisions, cosmic radiation, black holes and supernovae explosion.

9. Yes. The earth’s gravity was ''fine tuned'' to cause an object to strike the planet 65 million years ago obliterating most life.

10. That’s some special fine tuning

 

[Indeependent]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

It's not ez keeping up with the knowledge base Taz is constantly referencing.

 

[Taz]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

 

[Indeependent]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

I hardly believe, even for a moment, that you are interested in a discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity that evinces your level of education, and I may grace you with a response.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

I hardly believe, even for a moment, that you are interested in a discussion.

They are filled with rage that anyone would question what they were afraid to question when it was programmed into them.

Perhaps they recognize that it reveals their cowardice, and the vulgarity and attempts to ridicule is really their deep knowledge that that is what they deserve.


And, I am gratified to bring that out in his sort.

 

[Hollie]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

I hardly believe, even for a moment, that you are interested in a discussion.

They are filled with rage that anyone would question what they were afraid to question when it was programmed into them.

Perhaps they recognize that it reveals their cowardice, and the vulgarity and attempts to ridicule is really their deep knowledge that that is what they deserve.


And, I am gratified to bring that out in his sort.

Might I suggest you limit your participation in threads to your usual tactic of cutting and pasting edited, parsed and altered ''quotes''. You tend come across as buffoonish when you try to construct coherent sentences.

 

[alang1216]

I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
Don't think you're the first person I've asked...far from it.
All I get from Evolution worshipers is, "If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."
Liberals use ad hominems when they can't explain something.

So, you're saying many people have told you that you're not smart enough to understand it and they can't seem to explain it to you? Got it.

Have a few cups of coffee.
What I ask any Liberal a question such as the questions I ask here, they won't answer it at all.
Because they can't...so 100% of them give the exact same canned response...
"If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."

It's almost like RWers do with the canned responses Rush has programmed them to blurt out.

I'm unconvinced. I tried to honestly answer your question but I was unable to explain it to you.

 

[alang1216]

Another brilliant post by a government school grad.

A few things. First, the US public school system is actually about 14k school districts + almost 35k private schools. If you start looking at education on the level where decisions are being made - the district, or school level - you see a wide variety of outcomes and metrics. Even just breaking it down by state and looking at international PISA scores (a pretty standard international metric) you see that many portions of the US are doing well above the international average, and even would be ranked within the top 5–10 if ranked as countries (Bringing it back home: Why state comparisons are more useful than international comparisons for improving U.S. education policy).

As a nation, as a whole, we have the problem of public education being available for all in a diverse country with tons of immigrants. A huge part of the education gap is the fact that about 10% of our students are learning the language of instruction at any given time (English Language Learners in Public Schools). That means that they are trying to learn math, language arts, science, history, etc in a language that they do not speak natively and are in the process of learning to fluency.

In addition, the US, unlike many other countries, is philosophically very much anti-”tracking.” That is, we don’t have different basic course requirements and outcomes goals based on whether we think you are “college material” or should instead be taught a skilled trade. Many countries, particularly in Europe, have a model where students are tracked and usually the students in the non-college-bound tracks are not counted in international comparisons (Stopping German students in their tracks? - Marketplace). This complicates education as you try to be “all things to all students” and/or prepare kids (even mainstreamed “special ed” kids) that have no interest or aptitude as if they are all going to college.

The Universities, however, don’t have the same constraints as public schools. International students usually have to take an English proficiency exam prior to enrollment, and you better believe that admissions requirements “track” students into schools/programs according to test scores/past grades/other measures of ability. To turn a popular quote and comic on it’s head:

Public schools in the US are told “teach everyone to climb that tree!” Colleges and universities are told “pick the test, and then pick the students to try and take that test.” Naturally, the latter has much better outcomes!

As for why the US has so many of these schools - we have a history of (relative to other contemporaries) high literacy rates, at least a nominal cultural meme of being a meritocracy, and we dodged most of the at-home infrastructure damage of two World Wars - letting our colleges and universities explode with students on the GI bill, filled with funding to race the Soviets in science and tech, and expanding rapidly while Europe was digging out the rubble (the US had a baby boom while the UK was still under strict rationing guidelines until 1954).

PoleChick is hom skoolled. She seems traumatized by it as well, since she always attacks regular schools.

She went to an Ivy so she is one of the Chosen and obviously much smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of us, or at least the people she quotes must be or they wouldn't agree with her. It is her noblesse oblige to enlighten the benighted masses so long as we acknowledge her elevated status. She is vaguely Judeo-Christian but never even made it to the ninth commandment. It is an honor to be insulted by such a one.

Everyone on the internet is rich, beautiful and went to an Ivy League school. Well, except you, I guess.

She's full of shit, she was hom skoolled.

I may not be rich or from an Ivy but at least I'm beautiful.

 

[Taz]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

I hardly believe, even for a moment, that you are interested in a discussion.

Try me.

 

[Taz]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity that evinces your level of education, and I may grace you with a response.

I'm just trying to help discuss what you're having a hard time saying without copy&paste. You reach for the insult. pity.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
Don't think you're the first person I've asked...far from it.
All I get from Evolution worshipers is, "If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."
Liberals use ad hominems when they can't explain something.

So, you're saying many people have told you that you're not smart enough to understand it and they can't seem to explain it to you? Got it.

Have a few cups of coffee.
What I ask any Liberal a question such as the questions I ask here, they won't answer it at all.
Because they can't...so 100% of them give the exact same canned response...
"If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."

It's almost like RWers do with the canned responses Rush has programmed them to blurt out.

I'm unconvinced. I tried to honestly answer your question but I was unable to explain it to you.

I realize that you are not the only "scientist" alive in the last 1,000 years that can't answer my question without sprinkling the answer with generous amounts of nonsense.

 

[Indeependent]

11. “That our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible. In his Just Six Numbers, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Again?

"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."

Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?

'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.

You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.

I hardly believe, even for a moment, that you are interested in a discussion.

Try me.

You are convinced there is no God.
I am convinced there is a God.
You are convinced that if there were a God, life would be perfect.
I am convinced that God has given mankind the responsibility of creating our own eternity and God's patience is not as small as man's inability to deal with differences of opinion or with disappointment.
Does this make me naive?
Nope; I have experienced as much emotional and physical pain as the average American, but in the end, I cannot deny that I am only a figment of God's extremely generous imagination.

 

[alang1216]

I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
Don't think you're the first person I've asked...far from it.
All I get from Evolution worshipers is, "If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."
Liberals use ad hominems when they can't explain something.

So, you're saying many people have told you that you're not smart enough to understand it and they can't seem to explain it to you? Got it.

Have a few cups of coffee.
What I ask any Liberal a question such as the questions I ask here, they won't answer it at all.
Because they can't...so 100% of them give the exact same canned response...
"If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."

It's almost like RWers do with the canned responses Rush has programmed them to blurt out.

I'm unconvinced. I tried to honestly answer your question but I was unable to explain it to you.

I realize that you are not the only "scientist" alive in the last 1,000 years that can't answer my question without sprinkling the answer with generous amounts of nonsense.

Maybe you think it nonsense because you don't understand it. Or don't want to.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
Don't think you're the first person I've asked...far from it.
All I get from Evolution worshipers is, "If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."
Liberals use ad hominems when they can't explain something.

So, you're saying many people have told you that you're not smart enough to understand it and they can't seem to explain it to you? Got it.

Have a few cups of coffee.
What I ask any Liberal a question such as the questions I ask here, they won't answer it at all.
Because they can't...so 100% of them give the exact same canned response...
"If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."

It's almost like RWers do with the canned responses Rush has programmed them to blurt out.

I'm unconvinced. I tried to honestly answer your question but I was unable to explain it to you.

I realize that you are not the only "scientist" alive in the last 1,000 years that can't answer my question without sprinkling the answer with generous amounts of nonsense.

Maybe you think it nonsense because you don't understand it. Or don't want to.

I understand chemistry and biology.
Of course, according to the Internet, one has to be a specialist in over 10 scientific fields to understand Evolution.
That alone tells me it's a croc of garbage.