A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 30th 09, 09:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Noah's Dove
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rich Deem
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Introduction

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a
degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more
finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments
about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes
from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted
values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not
having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.Degree of fine
tuning
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological
constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is
a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First
hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was
rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent
supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological
constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter
in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was
some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave
background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the
cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out
that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the
lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives
an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his
book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced he

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is
hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire
North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height
of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S.
federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet
deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion
other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red
and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and
ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime
are one in 1037. (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are
detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly
smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no
planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe
would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be
possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force
that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and
higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of
the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of
matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton
could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of
hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and
no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%,
fusion would happen so readily and rapidly 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% (Martin
Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-
essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no
life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang;
hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making
life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence,
stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too
unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus,
many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive
than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force
constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun;
hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life
support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun,
thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy,
star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars
to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a
shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower:
stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in
the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet
have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have
formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty
space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe
would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's
orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the
universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets
to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of
spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less
massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for
life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions
in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life
chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the
formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse
all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life;
liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would
not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate
life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be
too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not
coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black
holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could
form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not
function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and
certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and
certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons
To Believe, Pasadena, CA.

The Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross

A classic book for modern Christian apologetics and science. Dr. Ross
presents the latest scientific evidence for intelligent design of our
world and an easy to understand introduction to modern cosmology. This
is a great book to give agnostics, who have an interest in cosmology
and astronomy.

Related Pages
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
Extreme Fine Tuning - Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant
The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System
Anthropic Coincidences by Stephen M. Barr (a theoretical particle
physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of
Delaware)

  #2  
Old January 30th 09, 01:40 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

You know that repeating yourself over and over and over is a sure sign
of INSANITY?

You can continue repeating this DRIVEL over and over and over, but I
won't let it stand unchallenged!

I bet you could find a link between ASSHOLES and whatever religious
nonsense you choose! Go ahead, try it!

Mixing religion and science is a VERY BAD idea!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:21:59 -0800 (PST), "Noah's Dove"
wrote:

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rich Deem
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Introduction

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a
degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more
finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments
about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes
from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

[rest deleted, unread as usual]
  #3  
Old January 30th 09, 03:17 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

The only fine tuning is that of wherever your God screwed up, whereas
it seems humanity is finishing off God's best work with our own
demise. Too bad your faith doesn't allow you to do anything
constructive for humanity or that of salvaging our frail environment.

Even if your God had his/her every wish, we'd never have ourselves a
world full of folks like yourself, because we'd all starve to death
within the first year.

What are you going to do for us when it cost $12,000/year just to eat?

~ BG


On Jan 30, 12:21*am, "Noah's Dove" wrote:
Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rich Deemhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Introduction

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a
degree *not possible through human engineering. Five of the more
finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments
about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes
from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter * * * Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons * * *1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity *1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe * * *1:1055
Mass of Universe1 * * * 1:1059
Cosmological Constant * 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted
values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not
having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.Degree of fine
tuning
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological
constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is
a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First
hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was
rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent
supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological
constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter
in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was
some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave
background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the
cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out
that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the
lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives
an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his
book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced he

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is
hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire
North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height
of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S.
federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet
deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion
other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red
and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and
ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime
are one in 1037. (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are
detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly
smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no
planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe
would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be
possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force
that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and
higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of
the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of
matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton
could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of
hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and
no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%,
fusion would happen so readily and rapidly 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% (Martin
Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-
essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no
life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang;
hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making
life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence,
stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life
chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too
unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus,
many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive
than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force
constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun;
hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life
support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun,
thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy,
star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars
to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a
shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower:
stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in
the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet
have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have
formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty
space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe
would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's
orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the
universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets
to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of
spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less
massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for
life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions
in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life
chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the
formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse
all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life;
liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would
not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate
life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be
too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not
coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too ...

read more

  #4  
Old January 30th 09, 06:45 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

You'll eat DIRT, BradBoi! lmfjao!

Just like the Chinese under Mao!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Talk about a BROWN NOSE!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:17:20 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

The only fine tuning is that of wherever your God screwed up, whereas
it seems humanity is finishing off God's best work with our own
demise. Too bad your faith doesn't allow you to do anything
constructive for humanity or that of salvaging our frail environment.

Even if your God had his/her every wish, we'd never have ourselves a
world full of folks like yourself, because we'd all starve to death
within the first year.

What are you going to do for us when it cost $12,000/year just to eat?

~ BG

  #5  
Old January 30th 09, 08:56 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Noah's Dove
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe


The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS
Sunday Morning
Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it
does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful
lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened.
I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they a Christmas
trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me.
I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a
ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers
and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me
at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection
near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crïeche, it's just
as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think
Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think
people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around,
period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an
explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I
don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that
we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as
we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.
But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities
came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is
a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not
funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this
happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound
and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened
by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get
out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our
lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed
out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection
if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings,
etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was
murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want
prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better
not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill,
thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said
OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they
misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we
might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We
said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why
they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to
kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it
out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the
world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say,
but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes'
through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start
sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about
sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass
freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed
in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many
on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or
what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us
than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it...
no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process,
don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein


On Jan 30, 9:45*am, Saul Levy wrote:
You'll eat DIRT, BradBoi! *lmfjao!

Just like the Chinese under Mao!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Talk about a BROWN NOSE!

Saul Levy

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:17:20 -0800 (PST), BradGuth

wrote:
The only fine tuning is that of wherever your God screwed up, whereas
it seems humanity is finishing off God's best work with our own
demise. *Too bad your faith doesn't allow you to do anything
constructive for humanity or that of salvaging our frail environment.


Even if your God had his/her every wish, we'd never have ourselves a
world full of folks like yourself, because we'd all starve to death
within the first year.


What are you going to do for us when it cost $12,000/year just to eat?


~ BG


  #6  
Old January 31st 09, 12:01 AM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

On Jan 30, 11:56*am, "Noah's Dove" wrote:
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS
Sunday Morning
Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. *And it
does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful
lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. *I don't feel threatened.
I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they a *Christmas
trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me.
I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a
ghetto. *In fact, I kind of like it *It shows that we are all brothers
and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me
at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection
near my beach house in Malibu . *If people want a crïeche, it's just
as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think
Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. *I think
people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around,
period. *I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an
explicitly atheist country. *I can't find it in the Constitution and I
don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that
we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as
we understand Him? *I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.
But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities
came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is
a little different: *This is not intended to be a joke; *it's not
funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this
happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound
and insightful response. *She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened
by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get
out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our
lives. *And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed
out. *How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection
if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings,
etc. *I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was
murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want
prayer in our schools, and we said OK. *Then someone said you better
not read the Bible in school. *The Bible says thou shalt not kill,
thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. *And we said
OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they
misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we
might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). *We
said an expert should know what he's talking about. *And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why
they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to
kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it
out. *I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the
world's going to hell *Funny how we believe what the newspapers say,
but question what the Bible says. *Funny how you can send 'jokes'
through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start
sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about
sharing. *Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass
freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed
in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many
on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or
what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us
than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. *If not then just discard it...
no one will know you did. *But, if you discard this thought process,
don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, *Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein

On Jan 30, 9:45*am, Saul Levy wrote:

You'll eat DIRT, BradBoi! *lmfjao!


Just like the Chinese under Mao!


BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Talk about a BROWN NOSE!


Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:17:20 -0800 (PST), BradGuth


wrote:
The only fine tuning is that of wherever your God screwed up, whereas
it seems humanity is finishing off God's best work with our own
demise. *Too bad your faith doesn't allow you to do anything
constructive for humanity or that of salvaging our frail environment.


Even if your God had his/her every wish, we'd never have ourselves a
world full of folks like yourself, because we'd all starve to death
within the first year.


What are you going to do for us when it cost $12,000/year just to eat?


~ BG


Yourself and our resident pretend-Atheist rabbi Saul Levy, very much
deserve one another.

~ BG
  #7  
Old January 31st 09, 01:03 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

I don't respect Ben Stein. He's no more than another RELIGIOUS WACKO
NUTJOB! The film he put out (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 2008)
PROVES IT! He really should have kept this hidden.

A lot of JOOS are HORRIBLY LIBERAL AND RELIGIOUS!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:56:37 -0800 (PST), "Noah's Dove"
wrote:


The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS
Sunday Morning
Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it
does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful
lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened.
I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they a Christmas
trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me.
I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a
ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers
and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me
at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection
near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crïeche, it's just
as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think
Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think
people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around,
period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an
explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I
don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that
we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as
we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.
But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities
came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is
a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not
funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this
happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound
and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened
by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get
out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our
lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed
out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection
if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings,
etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was
murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want
prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better
not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill,
thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said
OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they
misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we
might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We
said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why
they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to
kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it
out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the
world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say,
but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes'
through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start
sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about
sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass
freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed
in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many
on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or
what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us
than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it...
no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process,
don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein

[BradBoi's **** deleted as it's not relevant]
  #8  
Old January 31st 09, 01:16 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

I see you, VILLAGE IDIOT BradBoi! lmfjao!

You deserve me too!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:01:53 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

On Jan 30, 11:56*am, "Noah's Dove" wrote:
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS
Sunday Morning
Commentary.

My confession:



On Jan 30, 9:45*am, Saul Levy wrote:

You'll eat DIRT, BradBoi! *lmfjao!


Just like the Chinese under Mao!


BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Talk about a BROWN NOSE!


Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:17:20 -0800 (PST), BradGuth


wrote:
The only fine tuning is that of wherever your God screwed up, whereas
it seems humanity is finishing off God's best work with our own
demise. *Too bad your faith doesn't allow you to do anything
constructive for humanity or that of salvaging our frail environment.


Even if your God had his/her every wish, we'd never have ourselves a
world full of folks like yourself, because we'd all starve to death
within the first year.


What are you going to do for us when it cost $12,000/year just to eat?


~ BG


Yourself and our resident pretend-Atheist rabbi Saul Levy, very much
deserve one another.

~ BG

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Starlight and Fine Tuning. Malnutritious Astronomy Misc 1 February 22nd 06 07:15 PM
The Fine Tuning in the Universe [email protected] Misc 2 September 4th 05 01:52 PM
The Fine Tuning in the Universe [email protected] Astronomy Misc 3 September 2nd 05 08:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.