Summations Only

If the most likely possibility (silicon) is not likely at all, and it is not likely according to NASA, then the more exotic possibilities are even less likely. Did you read the link to NASA? Ross may well believe the earth, when everything is considered, is unique. This does not mean he doesn't expect more planets to be discovered inside the Goldilocks zone but my guess and I think Ross's guess is those planets will be determined not to be suitable for advanced life.You write: "If the universe isn't capable of producing something then it obviously isn't fine-tuned to produce that thing. At least not successfully."In this statement you are assuming you know the purpose of the Creator and how many earth-like planets he wants to create. I don't think we know that. If the earth is fine-tuned for life, as the evidence seems to suggest, why would you expect that to happen multiple times around the universe?

Stenger's comments are not in agreement with general relativity. The gravitational field is extremely important to GR. Stenger says it may not be real. Come on, read Stenger's quotes again. They are indefensible. Calling me names does not help your cause. It only makes you look desperate. Re-read my comments.If you really want to defend Stenger, you can do so at the new thread I will start.

quote:

---

If the most likely possibility (silicon) is not likely at all, and it is not likely according to NASA, then the more exotic possibilities are even less likely. Did you read the link to NASA?

---

How? That seems to be absurd. I'm not talking about a simple change in chemistry but something radically different.

quote:

---

You write: "If the universe isn't capable of producing something then it obviously isn't fine-tuned to produce that thing. At least not successfully."

​

In this statement you are assuming you know the purpose of the Creator and how many earth-like planets he wants to create. I don't think we know that. If the earth is fine-tuned for life, as the evidence seems to suggest, why would you expect that to happen multiple times around the universe?

---

I guess that I should be flattered that you confuse me with Hugh Ross, but I'm not. I'm simply arguing that successful fine tuning to produce a particular outcome should actually produce that outcome. No sane person should disagree with that.

Can't believe that you wrote that. That's the opposite of science.Your viewpoint is religious, now you want to rub it off on science.In science conclusions can and are changed as new evidence comes along. That's one of the great strengths of science. Not sticking with a preconceived idea, but following the evidence. It's a strength of the scientific method, not a weakness.Hard to understand for some people, but changing one's mind as new evidence comes along is a strength.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Well you're wrong. Scientific papers don't need context, they speak for themselves.But I don't even believe that you have any papers anymore, I think this whole charade is a big farce.This is just you stalling some more and dangling that supposed carrot that you're only going to expose to those who have already shown they are gullible enough to accept it before they even see it.And I'm not reading any books. Post some sort of evidence, or stop lying about having it.

Even more please. You do not know that he is lying about it. Not yet anyway

He's clearly a charlatan.Its one of the religious tricks: "Let me identify who will accept my evidence without question, that way I'll know who is susceptible to gullibility before I actually have to expose myself."I believe it is a form of predation.

I'm convinced he's lying.

It is my personal opinion - not representing board management or anything - that he is more likely to be so ignorant that he actually thinks he has evidence. He just has very little clue about what that would be to be of any value.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

When people believe they have good evidence, they ring the bells and shout out: "Look at this". And they show it to you.When people take the route of withholding it, trying to hype it up, dangling it just out of reach, and trying to gauge the reaction without having to actually expose it, then they know that they do not have good evidence because they realize they have to rely on other things besides the evidence.If that person is claiming they have good evidence while displaying that they know that it is not good evidence, then its safe to say that they are posting a deliberate falsehood.

On the evidence you present I am forced to agree with you. Carry on.

Stenger is unimportant other than to demonstrate that you know diddly squat about the topic at hand. I note again that despite being shown statements from general relativity text books essentially identical to Stenger's statements on GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, that you refuse to acknowledge your error. In short it appears that the statements are only wrong because Stenger says them. I can easily demonstrate that you are charlaton and a fraud based solely on your posts to these forums. For now, I'll note here that not even my citing of papers on the topic can get you to engage in a discussion of the science behind fine tuning, and that you won't answer basic questions about the papers you have supposedly read.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you are trying to see where I am coming from. Yes, of course, a scientist is willing to change his position if new evidence comes to light. But that is not what we are talking about here. In this situation, Stenger is trying to put his feet on both sides of the line. He says "I won't use the multiverse because it's an untested hypothesis." But he also tries to pretend it is scientific. It isn't. It is not just an untested hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis.

I didn't mean the papers needed context, I meant that you needed context. I think you are too lazy to read a book. Geez, did you bother to click on the link in Message 330? Ahhh... so you admit it.Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

I thought you were acknowledging that I was right. Amazingly, you side with Catholic Scientist who admits to being unwilling to read any books on the subject. Well, the level of this discussion is not going up at the moment. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.