Originally posted by Palynkabump
I can't find this publication. What I find is this one:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2002/10/011/pdf/jhep102002011.pdf
"Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant"
It concludes that the only reasonable conclusion is that we do not live in a world with a true cosmological constant. Which reminded me of this:
http://www.economist.com/node/ ...[text shortened]... s. It would be nice if you explained what your point is instead of going from quote to quote.
Originally posted by jaywillAnd that is the exact false conclusion that I argued against and thought I explained.
I think I understand Ross to be saying the things which would preclude the existence of stars and planets. And without stars and planets - no life.
What you really mean is "no life as we know it". But thats a given. Change the universe and its rules and you change its contents. But that does not rule out life. Life, at its most basic, is little more than a logical possibility - self replicating structures. As long as logic holds true, life might be possible. I don't think changing the mass of the universe by a dime is going to eliminate logic.
The real error you are making is assuming that we are special (the lottery winners) then working backwards.
Originally posted by jaywillWhat is your point to all this? Is it to say that its not possible to refute the possibility of a creator? What science degree do you hold? Just because your inspiration for this thread has a PhD in astrophysics, doesn't give him any scientific clout in matters of non-scientific topics, his ramblings are metaphysical at best. Show us the mathematics, physics, science...that only a handful of people on the site (excluding myself) have the possibility of understanding. That is to say, take us through the proof of god by way of quantum mechanics. You obviously understand the science behind these theories to thier full extent. I say this because there is nothing about your personality that says you jump to conclusions without having something to land on, am I right? I hope you can sense the sarcasm. Until then, quit riding the coattails of science waiting for the scientists to pause and think, so that you, under his guise, can make unsupported claims and ruin his good name.
If he didn't sell a book you'd be whining that he's not published !
Damned if you DO - Damned if you DON'T.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI doubt if they are even after money, they want scientific recognition not by scientists but by uneducated dupes whom they will try to convince they are right, god exists and you better be ready for judgement day, and science is wrong and the scientists who convince people otherwise are devils incarnate and will burn in hell forever and ever.
You don't actually get any money for publishing in journals...
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSo that's your resentment. You don't want to consider the "coincidence" of the anthropic principle because of a personal beef about burning in hell ?
I doubt if they are even after money, they want scientific recognition not by scientists but by uneducated dupes whom they will try to convince they are right, god exists and you better be ready for judgement day, and science is wrong and the scientists who convince people otherwise are devils incarnate and will burn in hell forever and ever.
So much for objectivity and pure curiosity.
Originally posted by Proper Knob==========================
Publishing a book doesn't count as being peer reviewed.
Publishing a book doesn't count as being peer reviewed.
=============================
Earning a Phd. does require peer review.
By the way, do you, whitehead, sonhouse, or anyone else so far retorting to my post have their Doctorate in Astrophysics yet ?
Brag a little, since you all want to hoot down Dr. Ross.
Originally posted by jaywillNot everyone with a PhD is qualified to talk about the existence of supernatural beings.
[b]==========================
Publishing a book doesn't count as being peer reviewed.
=============================
Earning a Phd. does require peer review.
By the way, do you, whitehead, sonhouse, or anyone else so far retorting to my post have their Doctorate in Astrophysics yet ?
Brag a little, since you all want to hoot down Dr. Ross.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI have more education in science than you do, yet you want to hoot down me. And I respect your right to do so regardless of your education so long as you can support your claims or show error in mine.
Earning a Phd. does require peer review.
By the way, do you, whitehead, sonhouse, or anyone else so far retorting to my post have their Doctorate in Astrophysics yet ?
Brag a little, since you all want to hoot down Dr. Ross.
People with Phd. make errors, tell lies, or simply make wild speculations just as much as the rest of us. They tend to know more about their subject than we do but they are not always right.
Originally posted by jaywillRetorting? Stop being so paranoid will you.
[b]==========================
Publishing a book doesn't count as being peer reviewed.
=============================
Earning a Phd. does require peer review.
By the way, do you, whitehead, sonhouse, or anyone else so far retorting to my post have their Doctorate in Astrophysics yet ?
Brag a little, since you all want to hoot down Dr. Ross.[/b]
The facts are this, you presented a quote from Dr Ross to the forum asking for clarification. Numerous posters have responded that what he has stated is not true.
If you don't like it, there's not a lot i can do about that is there?!
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobno all they have stated with the usual and now obligatory anti creationist vitriol is that we do not know the mass of the cosmos at the beginning of its, i hesitate to say it, creation, i suppose, being a purely materialistic type of guy you would prefer, happening/event. As yet i have not read any attempts to explain why if the mass of the cosmos was even a small percentage less, the event, would not have happened as it did. That such precision portends inference of a creator was not the point of Jaywills post, as he stressed time and again, he merely sought to ascertain the validity of his evaluation of the video presentation. Ok so we don't know the mass, but it still does not answer the question, for surely you can assume a value for a merely hypothetical argument.
Retorting? Stop being so paranoid will you.
The facts are this, you presented a quote from Dr Ross to the forum asking for clarification. Numerous posters have responded that what he has stated is not true.
If you don't like it, there's not a lot i can do about that is there?!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are clearly stepping over my posts. I have addressed much more than that as you will see if you go back and read my posts.
no all they have stated with the usual and now obligatory anti creationist vitriol is that we do not know the mass of the cosmos at the beginning of its, ....
To summarize:
1. If the mass of the universe was slightly different, I don't know whether it would affect significantly the current large scale structure of the universe or the laws of physics.
2. If the structure of the universe or the laws of physics were significantly different from what they are, then life as we know it would not exist. But to claim that biological life would be impossible is false, unless you define biological life sufficiently narrowly as to only include our current laws of physics. But if you go that route then you are doing little more than saying "If we were different then we would be different" which though true, is rather trivial.