What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,092
Points
190
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.



Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
5. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.

As an example, look at all that modern science has discovered about the unique character of the universe.



The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— the universe would consist only of hydrogen; with no heavy elements, there would be no planets and no life. If the amount converted were slightly larger (0.8%), fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%.



This is called the “fine tuning” of the universe. Like slowly turning a radio dial to “tune in” a station, scientists have discovered that a whole variety of knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision for the universe, and life, to exist. Hence, Dyson’s statement that “the universe knew we were coming.”



The universe is not a random crapshoot—the sense of purpose and design is overwhelming. When one ponders how scientists today demonstrate that the odds the universe “just happened” are infinitesimally small, it’s easy to believe in a Creator.”
The Universe Knew We Were Coming - Rich Hansen
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,926
Reaction score
2,514
Points
245
Location
Virginia
5. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.

As an example, look at all that modern science has discovered about the unique character of the universe.



The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— the universe would consist only of hydrogen; with no heavy elements, there would be no planets and no life. If the amount converted were slightly larger (0.8%), fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%.



This is called the “fine tuning” of the universe. Like slowly turning a radio dial to “tune in” a station, scientists have discovered that a whole variety of knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision for the universe, and life, to exist. Hence, Dyson’s statement that “the universe knew we were coming.”



The universe is not a random crapshoot—the sense of purpose and design is overwhelming. When one ponders how scientists today demonstrate that the odds the universe “just happened” are infinitesimally small, it’s easy to believe in a Creator.”
The Universe Knew We Were Coming - Rich Hansen
If anything the universe is custom made for the Coronavirus. There are many times more of them than there are of us on this planet.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
15,385
Reaction score
5,316
Points
290
Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the universe doesn't give a shit about them
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
5. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.

As an example, look at all that modern science has discovered about the unique character of the universe.



The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— the universe would consist only of hydrogen; with no heavy elements, there would be no planets and no life. If the amount converted were slightly larger (0.8%), fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%.



This is called the “fine tuning” of the universe. Like slowly turning a radio dial to “tune in” a station, scientists have discovered that a whole variety of knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision for the universe, and life, to exist. Hence, Dyson’s statement that “the universe knew we were coming.”



The universe is not a random crapshoot—the sense of purpose and design is overwhelming. When one ponders how scientists today demonstrate that the odds the universe “just happened” are infinitesimally small, it’s easy to believe in a Creator.”
The Universe Knew We Were Coming - Rich Hansen
If anything the universe is custom made for the Coronavirus. There are many times more of them than there are of us on this planet.



Another brilliant post by a government school grad.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,926
Reaction score
2,514
Points
245
Location
Virginia
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:

ifr8tHlvsv-ebulaHVirdI0F1OC7O5FHMZx80aKI9iFfpWEpAKwDVuj04W_ccSZ-NCNgNRr-Wnu0iUEjKVBe2X9iG76EnNGCHuXZ5UksJI6cM_UhczdliO4qWxsc-A=s0-d-e1-ft

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).
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,092
Points
190
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.



Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?
My Smithsonian link beats your TWO guys who have to pay to get into the Smithsonian. Too bad for you.

If you were an Ivy league grad you'd a) have a good job and wouldn't be here all the time, and b) you can't get through an Ivy League school by ranting and copy&pasting. EPIC FAIL. :biggrin:
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,092
Points
190
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:

ifr8tHlvsv-ebulaHVirdI0F1OC7O5FHMZx80aKI9iFfpWEpAKwDVuj04W_ccSZ-NCNgNRr-Wnu0iUEjKVBe2X9iG76EnNGCHuXZ5UksJI6cM_UhczdliO4qWxsc-A=s0-d-e1-ft

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. :cuckoo:
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,411
Reaction score
5,802
Points
1,830
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.

10. The usual cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya promoting the “if things were different, things would be different”, meme.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.



Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?
My Smithsonian link beats your TWO guys who have to pay to get into the Smithsonian. Too bad for you.

If you were an Ivy league grad you'd a) have a good job and wouldn't be here all the time, and b) you can't get through an Ivy League school by ranting and copy&pasting. EPIC FAIL. :biggrin:



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?


Don't be shy......be proud of the Robert Fiance School of Cosmetology.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
15,385
Reaction score
5,316
Points
290
Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the universe doesn't give a shit about them


Why is it that the intellectually challenged are wedded to vulgarity?



Once again you are proven wrong by the guy who uses curse words
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
6. Rather than a war between religion and science, Dennis Prager notes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”




7. Why, then, is there a sense of warfare between what Stephen Gould called Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)?

The reason is appears so is that the only scientists we hear in the media are of the atheistic Marxist sort.

“It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.



Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"



…Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.



The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement, as part of the European Social Forum." Let me make a prediction — this new leftwing "science" organization will be heavily involved in the global warming controversy on the side of big government and the "greening" of America.”
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,092
Points
190
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.



Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?
My Smithsonian link beats your TWO guys who have to pay to get into the Smithsonian. Too bad for you.

If you were an Ivy league grad you'd a) have a good job and wouldn't be here all the time, and b) you can't get through an Ivy League school by ranting and copy&pasting. EPIC FAIL. :biggrin:



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?


Don't be shy......be proud of the Robert Fiance School of Cosmetology.
I didn't need college, I made several hundred million dollars on an invention I came up with when I was 20. I still win.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.



Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?
My Smithsonian link beats your TWO guys who have to pay to get into the Smithsonian. Too bad for you.

If you were an Ivy league grad you'd a) have a good job and wouldn't be here all the time, and b) you can't get through an Ivy League school by ranting and copy&pasting. EPIC FAIL. :biggrin:



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?


Don't be shy......be proud of the Robert Fiance School of Cosmetology.
I didn't need college, I made several hundred million dollars on an invention I came up with when I was 20. I still win.


I believed it my job to show you to be an idiot.....I see you've taken over the task.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,411
Reaction score
5,802
Points
1,830
.that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 192328 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”




Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.
Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.



Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?

Typical government skoolur, eh?

Although, where is the Harun Yahya madrassah thought to be Ivy League.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,411
Reaction score
5,802
Points
1,830
6. Rather than a war between religion and science, Dennis Prager notes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”




7. Why, then, is there a sense of warfare between what Stephen Gould called Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)?

The reason is appears so is that the only scientists we hear in the media are of the atheistic Marxist sort.

“It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.



Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"



…Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.



The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement, as part of the European Social Forum." Let me make a prediction — this new leftwing "science" organization will be heavily involved in the global warming controversy on the side of big government and the "greening" of America.”
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/

10. What silly nonsense. Your linky no work.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,305
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
8. Before one scoffs at the nexus of religion and of science, consider what another scientist, Andrew Palmer, has written about how accurate Genesis is with respect to the order of events that modern science now agrees to after the Big Bang.

“…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.”
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,”., p.163-164.


1598457085394.png



“An acclaimed, paradigm-shifting evolutionary biologist shows how the biblical story of Genesis uncannily reflects recent scientific discoveries-and finds room for divine inspiration within.” https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/th...-book-of-the-bible-is-scientifically-accurate
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top