Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, your own scientists disagree with you!
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]
^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your glaring inability to describe just how your mindless chemicals DECIDE
"seem to"? I smell quote-mining.
If the chemicals are mindless then why would anyone expect there to be decisions involved?
Finally we have agreement in writing from you. And I promise I'm not quote miningAbout chemicals, very true ...... they are incapable of displaying any evidence of a guiding mind.
quote miningFinally we have agreement in writing from you. And I promise I'm not quote mining
Wait for it....... "That's not what I said!"
No idea as I haven't read that book. But I suspect there's more to it than the sentences you quoted. Do you consider my quote from you to be in context? Is it a fair reflection of what you said?quote mining
The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.
Conservatives have a reputation for quote mining and other ways of taking things out of context.
Urban Dictionary: quote mining
So how is what I quoted out of context?
Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.No idea as I haven't read that book. But I suspect there's more to it than the sentences you quoted. Do you consider my quote from you to be in context? Is it a fair reflection of what you said?
Never came across that term "quote mining" when I studied how to properly support an argument's thesis statement via supplying quotes from relevant sources. In fact, I aced that course. So your comment comes across as rather peevish.
About chemicals, very true- left to themselves they are incapable of displaying any evidence of a guiding mind.
H
Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.
Your sense of smell is good - there is more to it than the sentences he quoted. Quote mining? you be the judge:No idea as I haven't read that book. But I suspect there's more to it than the sentences you quoted...
You are not giving any context for what you are quoting. See post from Frumious for that context.H
Well, I am just wondering how what I am doing by citing Hawking's comment fits the definition of quote mining since I am being accused of quote mining.
I never claimed that chemicals do not show evidence of intelligent design.You are not giving any context for what you are quoting. See post from Frumious for that context.
I also only quoted directly from your post. Seems you think chemicals cannot provide evidence for intelligent design. Or did I not paint the whole picture?
But I quoted you directly. Or are you saying I left something out? That would be quote miningI never claimed that chemicals do not show evidence of intelligent design.
And what I quoted from you was exactly what you said, too. If you choose to quote certain words out of context it is possible to make them say pretty much anything you want. That's quote mining.The quotation from Hawkings is exactly what he said and what the said harmonizes with the thread title that the universe does displays fine tuning.
Well, your own scientists disagree with you!
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]
^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your glaring inability to describe just how your mindless chemicals DECIDE that they need self repair and go about PLANNING and BUIlDING and Meticulously Programming such a molecular repairing device without the agency of mind and for just such a purpose indicates to me that you are very probably incapable of properly evaluating the very process you claim to understand. Just saying.
As for the exact scientists involved in the calculations, that is irrelevant. Find a flaw and point it out. Your evasion by demanding that I provide the precise scientists indicates to me that you are incapable of pointing out any flaw because of an incapacity to properly evaluate the very info you are attempting to denigrate.
God? Well, since you folks insist on bringing God into the picture despite my attempts to leave him out, I am just now starting to go along with your preferred modus operandi. Of course then you start to snicker.
As for evidence? Anything having to do with an intelligent designer is tagged meaningless by atheists.
It's called invincible ignorance or as I refer to it the:
"Ï caint see Nuffin and you cain't make me!"syndrome.
The quotation from Hawkings is exactly what he said and what the said harmonizes with the thread title that the universe does displays fine tuning.
Creationists are inclined to leave out that additional explanation in an attempt to confuse "seem to" with "is".
You want me to add the disclaimer that Hawking's is an atheist? That's understandable.
Hawkings is an atheist and his comment was in no way meant to be taken as promoting theism.
Funny how that quote is a spot on confirmation of that KCFromNC stated just 3 posts ago:
The Hawking quote expresses an APPEARANCE of something. It uses the words "SEEMS TO". Then you turned that into "IT DOES".
Why? Does it matter? I mean "intelligent design" has nothing to do with Gods, right?
Or so you keep saying.
Neither is it meant to be taken like you are taking it.
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan.
- Arno Penzias, quoted in Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, editors, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salle, Illinois, Open Court, chapter 16, 1992, p. 83
I don't see anything in that quote that suggests that these values could have been any different.
Nore do I see anything there that allows for probability calculations without making a truckload of assumptions.
There is no "deciding" or "planning" going on. Nore have I ever claimed there is. That's just you and your broken mindreading device.
You are the one that made the claim. And how could I point out a flaw, if you fail to show me the calculations or the scientists that supposedly did it?
And this point, all I can / need to point out, is that you're making bare assertions without offering anything to back it up.
Just now? From the beginning, you've been using the terms "designer" and "god" as if they were synonyms. And let's not even get into your continued (and disproved) accusations that people only reject ID because of "atheistic agenda's".
You're not fooling anyone here.
See? There it is again.
Biologist Ken Miller considers it meaningless as well. He's a devout christian, you know. Off course, you know... I've only told you like a few dozen times, after all.
I can't see what you don't show.
So if the disclaimer isn't enough, then what else should I add?
The problem is that I don't detect intellectual honesty from those who refuse to see any significance in fine tuning.Well... you could try starting with some basic intellectual honesty.
No calculations are needed to see what is plainly there.
The problem isn't lack of evidence nor lack of calculations
-the problem is the refusal to acknowledge because acknowledgement is unacceptable from an atheistic viewpoint.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?