The most prominent cosmologists will be first to suggest that the Anthropic Principle is based on unproven assumptions, can you quote one saying that? You just name one and I'll find the quote? Can you do that James?

Is there any other place he has all this information besides that video? I got half way through it and quit trying to read it before it changed.

I am an average reader and I like to actually take my time and think about what I read but this video was down right annoying because I not only did not have time to think about what I was reading, I could not read it all before it changed as it went too fast.

Posted code to his application is useless to people who don't understand it and can't pick it apart.

jb

Yea JB I agree CDK is a smart guy but tends to try to cram too much into the 10 minutes that is the max length for unpaid accounts on youtube and I am right there with you, even as an above average speed reader, it is still too fast for proper absorption. I just have to pause it constantly to really get the info to sink in.

I'm still waiting on that name James. Just drop in and give me a name.

Thanks, I did not know you could pause it.

At what point should I view your non-response as a concession? You are wrong, you know it and you can't back up your ludicrous claims. Either respond with the name of a cosmologist who has rejected the physics behind the Anthropic Principle or admit you were blowing smoke. Have some self respect man.

Bump for Eljay, or anyone who thinks he has a point.

Here's my point. Respond to this one.

Take a frog and put it in a blender. Turn the blender on for - oh, let's say a minute. Now pour the contents into a bowl. How long will it take the contents to mutate back into a frog? And please explain your answer.

Since all of the genetic material needed to mutate into the frog in the first place are present, you should be able to successfully explain how this occurance will take place, since this is how life began in the first place - is it not? No, wait - this is NOT part of the theory of Evolution... or is it? Since Abiogenesis is NOT the beginning of Evolution, and Creationism is a myth. Where did life begin? Let's start with that cornerstone and see where it leads.

For Bushi, or whoever else wishes to comment.

Your too much eljay, this is great stuff, Im going to have to copy this over to the leagueofreason. They will LOVE you.

You're a joy my friend. Keep me posted on your results.

Fortunately, "the theory of evolution" is NOT a single, presumed-perfect storyline which explains, in detail, every aspect of the development of life on this planet. Unfortunately, both sides sometimes argue about it as if it were.

I have no idea how single cell organisms came to exist on this planet. Like you, I don't accept any explanation for this that I've heard from the scientific community. (OTOH, The blended frog comparison is silly, as the circumstances on earth during that time period were completely different then you'd find in that blender, and the time periods involved make the entire history of humanity look like an eye blink.)

Before someone can have an open mind, they must be able to be comfortable with having some things unexplained. If a person emotionally or psychologically MUST have an explanation for something, they run the risk of clinging to a belief system that provides that comfort, regardless of whether its true. Looking at the history of science, it would seem that scientist are wrong about most things, most of the time! This does not stop them from learning and developing better ideas.

Though some people do consider abiogenesis an integral part of 'the theory of evolution', other people don't. Logically, the merit of evolutionary theory as applied to later developments is independent of the merit of theories of abiogenesis.

What's sad is that tons so called progress has been developed as the result of WAR. How many times has the solution caused more problems?

BOOYA-KA-SHA

That was wrighten to justify there actions in the name of god. The fact that they lied doesn't disprove god.



So if you are rite than WE created our selve? please explain so that I may better understand how this spirtual foundation got here in the first place.



than you can probly bet that those stories don't depict th most high GOD of love. On the other hand if we are made in its image why wouldn't it have what most think are only human characteristics. IE: wrath


a simple case of "the grass is always greener"


If it made the disappear what would that prove? NOTHING it had to let this all play out proveing it's case.

You've got that mixed up. They left because they thought that they were better than us. "why should we serve such a lowley creature when they should be worshiping us as gods?" our mythology is full of false gods. I think you would agree with me there.

personally who gives a CRAP how the universe was created?why not quit wasting all this time trying to figure out how it was created and instead spend that time figuring out how to make the world better?

i liked it even if affinity isn't blindness.

Take your own advice. Each is his own master, what others do with there free time should concern you little outside of personal conflict.

Because we are creators in training. One day we will create universes.

So it's only natural that we would like to know how to do it.

Kinda a silly metaphor that nature is a blind watchmaker. Kinda similar to God as an absentee landlord.



That has a germ of a truth there. But can you at least agree that some may percieve your quote as being anti-intellectualism?

The concept of the watchmaker was a religious example of Intelligent design, the blind watch maker was an intellectual parody of that idea.

So the term itself is satire.