Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

Maybe you should go back to kindergarten, to improve language skills.

This is a poor quality insult. But it’s on par with your knowledge of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right now it appears that the universe had a beginning. If you understood the model you would also understand that it say that the universe is eternal as well.

It does appear to you that it had a beginning, right? It "appears" that way to me, too. But not by observation of the stars, the heavens, etc. ONLY BECAUSE of what I am told and -- it makes sense to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow! You are being incredibly hypocritical again. Corrections are not insults. You make tons of errors. That is not an insult. That is an observation. As a result everyone is always correcting you. Corrections are only insults if some adds "You idiot" or other such lines. No one has done that to you here.

Everyone that can't explain things? Is that what you mean? Or giving snide little jabs and jokes? I'm beginning to think you don't know what you're talking about regarding me, and that's kind of sad. To me. But -- I'm obviously not the ultimate judge.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow! You are being incredibly hypocritical again. Corrections are not insults. You make tons of errors. That is not an insult. That is an observation. As a result everyone is always correcting you. Corrections are only insults if some adds "You idiot" or other such lines. No one has done that to you here.

Pointing out errors is not an insult. Should not be anyway. Pointing out stupidity or recalcitrance is another situation.

 

[Pogo]

@TagliatelliMonster are you planning to make a reply?

do you grant this conclusion?

the BB paradox refutes any chance hypotheiss?

It is a paradox, it is not a refutation. Learn what the word means.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am saying that what is taken as evidence by some for the supposedly very slow process of mutations leading from fish to land animals is obviously not substantiated by any type of real time observations, only suppositions which hitherto cannot be supported by actual showing of fish, for example, slowly, very slowly developing (or evolving) to landlubbers.

It doesn't really matter either way.
The Bible (and Qur'an) tell us that G-d created the universe .. but not how He created it.

Even if you want to take "made Eve from Adam's rib" literally, it still doesn't tell us how.
In fact, we don't need to know how .. we just need to be sure that G-d exists.

To a disbeliever, this life is the b all and end all .. but the believer knows better.
There's nothing to prove .. some prefer a righteous path, and some don't ..
..that's what it really boils down to.

 

[leroy]

Okay, when you have been talking about both the Boltzmann Brain and the Big Bang theory then you should spell them out.

And I am not surprised that you do not see how it applies. The Boltzmann Brain example is not a hypothesis. Neither is Fine Tuna argument. They are both unsupported and to date unsupportable suppositions.

That the universe has the property that is commonly known as fine tuning is a well-supported and almost uncontroversial fact.

That some models of the universe/multiverse are discarded due to the Boltzmann Brain Paradox is also a well-supported fact.

But the mess that you wrote that nobody understands………..who knows………it all depends on what you mean.

 

[McBell]

That the universe has the property that is commonly known as fine tuning is a well-supported and almost uncontroversial fact.

Except you have not shown that the universe was tuned, let alone fine tuned....

That some models of the universe/multiverse are discarded due to the Boltzmann Brain Paradox is also a well-supported fact.

Which models would that be?

 

[leroy]

It is a paradox, it is not a refutation. Learn what the word means.

Stop writing random unrelated comments, if you disagree with anything I said, then quote my exact words, and explain why you think I am wrong.

 

[leroy]

Except you have not shown that the universe was tuned, let alone fine tuned....

Luckily nobody is claiming that the universe was tuned in the literal sense of the Word……..fine tuning simply means that the life permitting rage is narrow………………..I understand that this is misleading and that physicists should use a different word………..but what can we do, scientists also like to use “click bait” to gain attention from the public

Which models would that be?

Any model that claims that the FT is just a coincidence (chance) is refuted by the BB paradox………….this is particularly true if you think that the low entropy of the early universe was just a lucky accident.

for example most multiverse approaches fall in to this category.

 

[Pogo]

That the universe has the property that is commonly known as fine tuning is a well-supported and almost uncontroversial fact.

That some models of the universe/multiverse are discarded due to the Boltzmann Brain Paradox is also a well-supported fact.

But the mess that you wrote that nobody understands………..who knows………it all depends on what you mean.

 

[Pogo]

Stop writing random unrelated comments, if you disagree with anything I said, then quote my exact words, and explain why you think I am wrong.

Because you are intellectually not close to being able to understand the discussion of cosmology HEP, fine tuna.

You don't know what a paradox is, your think Dembski's whatever is real science, you think the claptrap you read on your YEC websites is correct. Heck, you have redefined fine tuning so that it isn't even tuned.usw

If you would like to demonstrate otherwise, summarize this proposed resolution of the Boltzman Brain paradox.
arXiv:0809.3623v1 [hep-th] 22 Sep 2008

 

[Pogo]

That the universe has the property that is commonly known as fine tuning is a well-supported and almost uncontroversial fact.

That some models of the universe/multiverse are discarded due to the Boltzmann Brain Paradox is also a well-supported fact.

But the mess that you wrote that nobody understands………..who knows………it all depends on what you mean.

Just NO, Fine tuning is not uncontroversial in fact it doesn't even have a measureable definition as your misunderstanding of it proves. A paradoja is not a fact, it is in this case simply a statement that if your equations come out to this, they are not the right ones, you did the math wrong. The only one here who doesn't understand is you.
Don't give up your day job.

 

[leroy]

Because you are intellectually not close to being able to understand the discussion of cosmology HEP, fine tuna.

You don't know what a paradox is, your think Dembski's whatever is real science, you think the claptrap you read on your YEC websites is correct. Heck, you have redefined fine tuning so that it isn't even tuned.usw

If you would like to demonstrate otherwise, summarize this proposed resolution of the Boltzman Brain paradox.
arXiv:0809.3623v1 [hep-th] 22 Sep 2008

Again, quote my actual words, and explain why is that a mistake…………….

 

[leroy]

Just NO, Fine tuning is not uncontroversial in fact it doesn't even have a measureable definition as your misunderstanding of it proves. A paradoja is not a fact, it is in this case simply a statement that if your equations come out to this, they are not the right ones, you did the math wrong. The only one here who doesn't understand is you.
Don't give up your day job.

What scientists call FT is not controversial. (the life permitting rage is narrow)

Your straw man of FT who knows………. It all depends on how you personally misunderstand this concept

 

[Pogo]

Again, quote my actual words, and explain why is that a mistake…………….

You don't even know what your words mean, you just copy and paste something that sounds like what you think you are trying to say.

 

[Pogo]

What scientists call FT is not controversial. (the life permitting rage is narrow)

Your straw man of FT who knows………. It all depends on how you personally misunderstand this concept

You are describing the weak anthropic principle, if the values were not close to what they are we wouldn't be here. It took you several posts to recognize the triviality of this statement.
As with that this flies over your head.

 

[Pogo]

@leroy, How are you doing with the summary of that paper?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the universe has the property that is commonly known as fine tuning is a well-supported and almost uncontroversial fact.

That some models of the universe/multiverse are discarded due to the Boltzmann Brain Paradox is also a well-supported fact.

But the mess that you wrote that nobody understands………..who knows………it all depends on what you mean.

Not in the sense that you try to use the argument. And you keep forgetting that you do not understand the argument in the first place.

I will probably have to remind you again and again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone that can't explain things? Is that what you mean? Or giving snide little jabs and jokes? I'm beginning to think you don't know what you're talking about regarding me, and that's kind of sad. To me. But -- I'm obviously not the ultimate judge.

You are being overly sensitive. When you refuse to learn and yet claim to have been a very good student you can't complain if you get knocked a bit here and there.

Why are you so afraid to learn?