Does anyone really want this?

[Prezken]

It isn't.

We are done.
This is not a fact. It is a speculation. It makes exactly as much sense as me Wowing you by saying, "You know what, If Two was actually Three, then it would divide into Nine with No Remainder !! WOW"
Its not.
We are done.
Those aren't facts. They are speculation, and silly ones at that.
CONSTANT. That means it doesn't change. So speculations about what might be if it was changed, are not science, nor are they fact.

Yes it is fact, it's called astronomy and physics, better know as astrophysics, maybe you should take a course sometime. I'll never understand why ppl presume to know about subjects they obviously know so very little about. If you don't know something just be a man or woman about it and say I don't know. Don't try to pull some answer out of your butt because in the end it only makes you look foolish. The anthropic principle is not questioned in science. Even the most staunch atheistic scientists admit it is the most difficult to explain principle found thus far as well as the most compelling evidence for a creator that exists in science.

 

[Voidwar]

Yes it is fact, it's called astronomy and physics, better know as astrophysics, maybe you should take a course sometime.

I hold Degrees in Chemistry and Genetics from Iowa State.
What hard science degrees do you hold ?
Your speculations, about "wiggling" the value of the Gravitiational constant, are poppycock, and not even close to factual.

As I stated, , ,

It makes exactly as much sense as me Wowing you by saying, "You know what, If Two was actually Three, then it would divide into Nine with No Remainder !! WOW"

I'll never understand why ppl presume to know about subjects they obviously know so very little about.

Like you know so very little about me ?
Or that you are educationally outgunned here ?
Or about what the concept of a "constant" is ?

If you don't know something just be a man or woman about it and say I don't know. Don't try to pull some answer out of your butt because in the end it only makes you look foolish.

:roll: Yeah, I'm the one looking foolish. :roll:

I'm not the one thinking that speculation is a fact.

The anthropic principle is not questioned in science. Even the most staunch atheistic scientists admit it is the most difficult to explain principle found thus far as well as the most compelling evidence for a creator that exists in science.

This is not a fact either. This, is hearsay. It is a foolish unprovable trap, that people with poor reasoning skills fall into.

Science is testable.
Show me one piece of data.
Describe your experiment.
Lets see your control group.

Your "Anthropic" HorseHockey is almost exactly as stupid as the "Intelligent Design" whitewash painted over Creationism these days.

I am still waiting for a FACT that implies design.
Speculations about moving the unmovable, or declaring that Two is now Three, are no more scientific than a ghost story, or your Resurrection Story.

 

[Panache]

Yes it is fact, it's called astronomy and physics, better know as astrophysics, maybe you should take a course sometime.

Astrophysics is a fact? I didn't know that.

"Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen"

This is a fact.

astronomy and physics

This is not a fact.

Now if you had said "When studying both astronomy and physics in order to better understand how our universe operates, the term astrophysics is often used to describe such a study."

This might be construed as a fact, but is unlikely to be contested, and further, does not support your theory that Mitt should not be elected based on his religion.

 

[Prezken]

I hold Degrees in Chemistry and Genetics from Iowa State.
What hard science degrees do you hold ?

What is your point here? We are talking about astronomy and physics. Unless this is your clever way of admitting to the board that you don't know what you are talking about. I myself happen to hold degrees in astronomy and computer science. I also have a MCSE and CCNA certification. At least now everyone knows you are a novice in the area we are speaking off.

Your "Anthropic" HorseHockey is almost exactly as stupid as the "Intelligent Design" whitewash painted over Creationism these days.

Again that is because you don't know your head from a hole in the ground in this arena. I think I'll trust the biggest names in this branch of science over a chemist....surely as a fellow scientist you can appreciate that.

I am still waiting for a FACT that implies design.
Speculations about moving the unmovable, or declaring that Two is now Three, are no more scientific than a ghost story, or your Resurrection Story.

Again, until you study up on these principles you have no business making such foolish statements. We do indeed know these things you claim are non scientific. So please stick to your realms of expertise and stay out of mine. I have no interest in debating a topic when someone presumes to know things they do not. I would not be so bold as to jump into a debate regarding genetics because that is not my area. So why do you?

 

[Prezken]

Astrophysics is a fact? I didn't know that.

"Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen"

This is a fact.



This is not a fact.

Now if you had said "When studying both astronomy and physics in order to better understand how our universe operates, the term astrophysics is often used to describe such a study."

This might be construed as a fact, but is unlikely to be contested, and further, does not support your theory that Mitt should not be elected based on his religion.

Astrophysics deals in facts. We know these things are required to support life. No one in astronomy questions the Anthropic Principle. We may disagree with what it is pointing too, but we certainly don't disagree that it is there and it is factual. BTW, I didn't want to head into this area. I started this topic about Mitt and what mormon beliefs are. If you will remember I even made a point that i didn't feel we should be talking about all the scientific stuff in this thread.

 

[Voidwar]

What is your point here? We are talking about astronomy and physics. Unless this is your clever way of admitting to the board that you don't know what you are talking about. I myself happen to hold degrees in astronomy and computer science. I also have a MCSE and CCNA certification. At least now everyone knows you are a novice in the area we are speaking off.

I said a Hard Science :lol:

Hard Science, requires testability, falsifiabilty, controls, data.

Why is it that I am the only one who actually has any facts to back up my statements?

You have not produced any Facts.

You have told a story. A lot like creationism.

A "what if" , about a constant not being, constant.

This farce / fantasy is not a fact.

Again that is because you don't know your head from a hole in the ground in this arena.

From what knowledge about do you falsely assert I don't understand Astrophysics ?
I started as a Physics Major, and my hero was Sagan
You however, are ignorant of any full disclosure of my areas of knowledge or expertise, and you have exposed this ignorance with a foolish and false assertion.

A degree in Astronomy and Computer Science does give you a horse in the Hard Science education race, but Chemistry and Genetics, bit Harder We run experiments. We create DATA. We have Controls.

Astronomy is more documentation and interpretation than running experiments. Not like you can set up a few Stars of various masses and have them Supernova on Thursday now is it ?

Programming is not science, it is writing code. The code either works, gets ignored or crashes. I will grant that it is a highly complex field, and get very difficult mathematically, but I will still say that it is not an experimental science, and thus not a great producer of "facts".

Of course, you brought education into the matter, right here...

Yes it is fact, it's called astronomy and physics, better know as astrophysics, maybe you should take a course sometime.

...and if you like, I'm happy to leave it out, and continue our search for a FACT.

I think I'll trust the biggest names in this branch of science

If so, then quote one saying the Sun was conjured by an Ancient Hebrew Spellcaster.

Again, until you study up on these principles you have no business making such foolish statements. We do indeed know these things you claim are non scientific.

Again, for the millionth time, PROVE IT. Not taking your word for it.

Show me one fact.

you haven't presented ANY facts that support this . . .

That's a very common misconception. Christianity and science actually co-exist perfectly.

I have no interest in debating a topic when someone presumes to know things they do not.

I did no such presuming, and this is your attempt to flee from the challenge of producing a Fact.

I would not be so bold as to jump into a debate regarding genetics because that is not my area. So why do you?

Because, I am a polymath, and its all one universe, magician free. :2wave:

 

[Panache]

I think I'll trust the biggest names in this branch of science over a chemist....

Man, I just attended a two-part lecture series featuring Stephen Hawkings and Brian Greene...

I should have asked them if they think the universe was created by a Hebrew Spellcaster when I had the chance...

Regardless of whether or not you are correct about intelligent design. In order to support your "Mitt doesn't agree with science" theory for why he shouldn't be President, you must also prove that all your bullet points regarding what you claim are his beliefs do not agree with science.

We can start with "Jesus and Lucifer were brothers." How has science disproven this?

Even if you could prove that none of them are possible according to science, I know that most of the Mormans I know don't believe all of them, so it is unlikely that Mitt believes them either.

 

[RightOfCenter]

What is your point here? We are talking about astronomy and physics. Unless this is your clever way of admitting to the board that you don't know what you are talking about. I myself happen to hold degrees in astronomy and computer science. I also have a MCSE and CCNA certification. At least now everyone knows you are a novice in the area we are speaking off.

Again that is because you don't know your head from a hole in the ground in this arena. I think I'll trust the biggest names in this branch of science over a chemist....surely as a fellow scientist you can appreciate that.



Again, until you study up on these principles you have no business making such foolish statements. We do indeed know these things you claim are non scientific. So please stick to your realms of expertise and stay out of mine. I have no interest in debating a topic when someone presumes to know things they do not. I would not be so bold as to jump into a debate regarding genetics because that is not my area. So why do you?

Still waiting on your scientific basis for the Resurection...

 

[Prezken]

Man, I just attended a two-part lecture series featuring Stephen Hawkings and Brian Greene...

I should have asked them if they think the universe was created by a Hebrew Spellcaster when I had the chance...

Regardless of whether or not you are correct about intelligent design. In order to support your "Mitt doesn't agree with science" theory for why he shouldn't be President, you must also prove that all your bullet points regarding what you claim are his beliefs do not agree with science.

We can start with "Jesus and Lucifer were brothers." How has science disproven this?

Even if you could prove that none of them are possible according to science, I know that most of the Mormans I know don't believe all of them, so it is unlikely that Mitt believes them either.

Ok, Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. Well first off you have to understand the mormon concept of God. They believe in an infinite past of Gods. This alone is known scientifically as false as we can see back to the creation event before our universe came to be. Next they say there is a God on one world and then his spiritual children can get a world of their own to be God over. Well this world hopping is insane. The maximum # of possible lifesupport planets in our universe is 1x10^22. The odds of a life support planets existing is 1x10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) So think about what we are talking about here. They say there are hundreds if not thousands of these planets existing. So while I can't say with 100% certainty it is impossible as nothing in science is 100%. I can say that you would have a much better chance of getting struck by lightning once a second for the next 10 years

So according to mormon doctrine Jesus and Lucifer scientifically couldn't exist let alone be brothers.

 

[Prezken]

I said a Hard Science :lol:

Hard Science, requires testability, falsifiabilty, controls, data.



You have not produced any Facts.

You have told a story. A lot like creationism.

A "what if" , about a constant not being, constant.

This farce / fantasy is not a fact.

Can you say strawman? This is such a bogus argument it is not even worth formulating a formal response too. As a fellow scientist you should be ashamed.

From what knowledge about do you falsely assert I don't understand Astrophysics ?
I started as a Physics Major, and my hero was Sagan
You however, are ignorant of any full disclosure of my areas of knowledge or expertise, and you have exposed this ignorance with a foolish and false assertion.

That is nice, but physics covers many areas and astronomy is just one of them. Now maybe things were different at your school, but in my physics courses they didn't talk about dark matter, the anthropic principle, the big bang, cosmological constant, and etc...Nice hero btw, brilliant man, don't agree with in his conclusions, but nevertheless a brilliant man.

A degree in Astronomy and Computer Science does give you a horse in the Hard Science education race, but Chemistry and Genetics, bit Harder We run experiments. We create DATA. We have Controls.

There is no questioning that astronomy is a simple science. But i'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. We most certainly take our observations and measurements and make predictions on what we should see if we are correct. You know the scientific method.

If so, then quote one saying the Sun was conjured by an Ancient Hebrew Spellcaster.

oh brother :roll:

Again, for the millionth time, PROVE IT. Not taking your word for it.
Show me one fact.

Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998), 461, 465.

For physical life to be possible—anywhere, anytime—the mass density of the universe can differ by no more than one part in 10^60, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10^120. Is that good enough or are you going to say it's not a valid science journal?

 

[Panache]

The maximum # of possible lifesupport planets in our universe is 1x10^22. The odds of a life support planets existing is 1x10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) So think about what we are talking about here. They say there are hundreds if not thousands of these planets existing.

We are not talking about chance here, we are talking about design. If the Universe was designed so that there would be as many life supporting planets as possible, then the number of life supporting planets in our univers is 1x10^22

No reason why Jesus and Lucifer can't be brothers according to science, Hebrew Spellcasting notwithstanding.

 

[Voidwar]

Can you say strawman? This is such a bogus argument it is not even worth formulating a formal response too. As a fellow scientist you should be ashamed.

It is not a bogus argument.

"What if"'s about changing "Constants" are fairy tales, not science.

It the same fairy tale whether you pretend you can change the grav coupling constant, or whether you pretend you can change the density of the universe. You can't do either, so the speculation is fantasy.

Your latest quote is just the same song. A certain observable, and your point is there would be no life, if it were different. Well, ITS NOT, so this fairy tale is no better evidence than the first.

It might be a fact, an observable, but it doesn't support or prove design.

 

[Panache]

On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist.

This is just one of a ton of FACTS regarding our universe that shows it has been designed.

Did you know that if the circumference of a circle were equal to 7 times its diameter, our sun would be much larger around than it is now? In fact, all the stars would be much larger around now, and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets.

As a consequence, Adam and Eve would not have committed original sin, and Jesus wouldn't have died.

This is just one of a ton of FACTS regarding our universe that shows it has not been designed.

 

[Prezken]

I find this board full of intellectual dishonesty. It is really disheartening. Of course that is what I have come to find when dealing with atheists and evolutionists on other boards so i'm not sure why I expected more on this board since it is about politics after all.

I have no interest in continuing this debate if you want to even call it that as you two have no interest in learning anything. You both admit to being out of your scientific realm, yet proclaim to know more than me who has a degree in the subject. That my friends is intellectual dishonesty at it's finest and I will not be a part of such nonsense. If you ever decide to actually converse and debate in an honest fashion, let me know. Good day to you both.

 

[Panache]

I have no interest in continuing this debate if you want to even call it that as you two have no interest in learning anything. You both admit to being out of your scientific realm, yet proclaim to know more than me who has a degree in the subject. That my friends is intellectual dishonesty at it's finest and I will not be a part of such nonsense. If you ever decide to actually converse and debate in an honest fashion, let me know. Good day to you both.

You backing out because I presented you with actual FACTS?

Debate are suppose to involve two sides giving their beliefs and backing up those claims with evidence. Then the other side makes a rebuttal with thier own evidence and beliefs.

You have presented "facts" that you claim indicate a designed universe. I have presented "facts" that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no such design.

Why don't you want to address the facts that I have presented?

 

[laska]

I know very little about science but if your "intellectual honesty" on science is like that on Mormons, I can see where you'll have problems at DP.

 

[disneydude]

I find this board full of intellectual dishonesty. ...yet proclaim to know more than me who has a degree

This...coming from a person who in this post and a very similar other....posted some of the most ridiculous propoganda I have personally ever seen on this site.
Of course No One on this board could ever be as intelligent as you.

 

[jallman]

This...coming from a person who in this post and a very similar other....posted some of the most ridiculous propoganda I have personally ever seen on this site.
Of course No One on this board could ever be as intelligent as you.

I pretty much wrote him off when he started denigrating the religion of another. It would seem that if he wanted an intellectually honest debate about a presidential candidate, he would have brought up, gee I dunno, the man's politics and career...but instead, he started a smear fest about his supposed religious beliefs.

 

[Prezken]

This...coming from a person who in this post and a very similar other....posted some of the most ridiculous propoganda I have personally ever seen on this site.
Of course No One on this board could ever be as intelligent as you.

The most intelligent on this board, highly doubtful. My IQ is around 140-145 depending on the test I take, but i'm sure there are others on here higher. Intelligence in general isn't the question. Intelligence in astronomy is what is in question. So everyone who has a degree in Astronomy please say I.


I


As to the mormons, every statement I made I backed up by statements from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and etc...Most mormons don't know about them because the church is embarassed and doesn't mention them unless they have too. Again, i have direct family that are mormons, so i'm not just shooting in the dark here.

 

[Prezken]

You backing out because I presented you with actual FACTS?

Again, not even going to waste my time with this nonsense.

You have presented "facts" that you claim indicate a designed universe. I have presented "facts" that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no such design.

Why don't you want to address the facts that I have presented?

You want facts?? Here are all the things that have to be intricately fine tuned for any life to even be possible, but of course it all just happened by random chance, right?

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field


So let me see your "FACTS" to disprove the obvious design implications here? Saying it just happened that way doesn't work. You would be laughed out of every astronomy classroom in america with the "FACTS" you've given thus far.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

The most intelligent on this board, highly doubtful. My IQ is around 140-145 depending on the test I take, but i'm sure there are others on here higher. Intelligence in general isn't the question. Intelligence in astronomy is what is in question. So everyone who has a degree in Astronomy please say I.


I


As to the mormons, every statement I made I backed up by statements from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and etc...Most mormons don't know about them because the church is embarassed and doesn't mention them unless they have too. Again, i have direct family that are mormons, so i'm not just shooting in the dark here.

______
Well, now that you mentioned others having a higher IQ mine is 164.

 

[Panache]

So let me see your "FACTS" to disprove the obvious design implications here?

Since you asked nicely...

Here are all the things that have to be intricately fine tuned for Brsogretriustius to even be possible. Clearly these things have not been intricately fine tuned in such a way that the existence of Brsogretriustius is possible, therefore it was not designed.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field


As a side note, everyone who knows the difference between an adverb used to express affirmation and a first-person singular pronoun, please say aye.


aye!
:mrgreen:

 

[Voidwar]

These are all the same argument I shot down the first time.

The fantasy of changing the value of a constant.

Constants are Constant. Fantasies about what might be if they were different, are Fantasies, Not Facts.

Spouting a list of Constants, does not imply design.

 

[disneydude]

Again, not even going to waste my time with this nonsense.





You want facts?? Here are all the things that have to be intricately fine tuned for any life to even be possible, but of course it all just happened by random chance, right?

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field


So let me see your "FACTS" to disprove the obvious design implications here? Saying it just happened that way doesn't work. You would be laughed out of every astronomy classroom in america with the "FACTS" you've given thus far.

Desperation is rarely pretty.

You are trying so hard to convince people here that you are super intelligent. Its not necessary. As a result you are quickly destroying your credibility. Just debate the issues....people here don't need you to convince them that you are smarter than they are....

 

[Prezken]

These are all the same argument I shot down the first time.

The fantasy of changing the value of a constant.

Constants are Constant. Fantasies about what might be if they were different, are Fantasies, Not Facts.

Spouting a list of Constants, does not imply design.

You have shot down absolutely nothing, you are right they are constant because God made them constant. It absolutely implies design and if ppl like hawking and etc...can see that why can't you? Right, because it would force you to admit that you may be wrong. The facts are that it should be theoretically impossible for us to be here. Scientifically it just would never happen unless we were in an infinite universe which we know for a FACT it isn't. Give it up, this is one argument you can't win by sticking your fingers in your ear and trying to shout the same old tired argument. The FACT that these did stay constant is implication of design.