Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator
CK
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 209 of 325 (150470)
10-17-2004 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by JasonChin
10-17-2004 9:51 AM


Re: Hey, yall.....
quote:
This is so obviously false that I don't feel compelled to explain why it's fallacious.........
Sorry we don't work like that here - please explain why it is fallacious , because the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics seems to suggest this is not the case.
quote:
These theories are so wide spread and many that I get the opposite impression........
Could you list just two or three (as they are widespread) and the academic journals in which they appear.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-17-2004 09:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by JasonChin, posted 10-17-2004 9:51 AM JasonChin has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 213 of 325 (150477)
10-17-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by JasonChin
10-17-2004 10:04 AM


Re: Hey, yall.....
Those are nice dodges but could you tackle the questions posed -
jason writes:
This is so obviously false that I don't feel compelled to explain why it's fallacious.........
charles writes:
Sorry we don't work like that here - please explain why it is fallacious , because the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics seems to suggest this is not the case.
Jason writes:
These theories are so wide spread and many that I get the opposite impression........
Charles writes:
Could you list just two or three (as they are widespread) and the academic journals in which they appear.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-17-2004 09:07 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-17-2004 09:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by JasonChin, posted 10-17-2004 10:04 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 2:33 AM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 260 of 325 (150672)
10-18-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 2:33 AM


Re: Hey, yall.....
Nope. As a man who has wasted countless hours arguing on the internet over the years, I've decided to implement a policy where I simply ignore certain questions, such as the ones (like these) designed to simply slow down the flow of the conversation in order to avoid the inevitable logical conclusion.......I call these "feet drag" questions".
Frankly from reading your posts I think you talk out of your arse and don't know what you are on about. Besides a overuse of the word moronic - you have failed to back any of the assumptions/asserations you have made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 2:33 AM JasonChin has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 293 of 325 (150922)
10-18-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 8:37 PM


for instance, we know that a star that burns out in a million years (as stars would if gravity was much greater) don't have time for planets to form around it......
And what is that suppose to prove? that example doesn't provide any evidence of fine-tuning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 8:37 PM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 8:45 PM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 295 of 325 (150924)
10-18-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 8:45 PM


em.. no that doesn't follow at all - as a number of people have explained to you.
quote:
Do I have to explain everything to you people?
That's suggesting that you have explained something.. which you haven't.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 07:47 PM
You did read post 274 - right?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 07:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 8:45 PM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 8:49 PM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 298 of 325 (150927)
10-18-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 8:49 PM


removed by editor - because it's just not worth it.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 07:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 8:49 PM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 9:00 PM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024