Time to get the thread back on topic. I agree if they critically studied the bible there would be fewer bible believers.
its funny you would cite Free Thinker on this thread. He and Stu were lying and misrepresenting science for 5 - 7 years. Ask him how many times he argued that scientists were not saying the constants appear fine tuned. Free thinker or stu acting like they are pro science is like Obama saying he is pro free market forces in health care.
The answer is none. The constants appear fine tuned The constants are fine tuned. Were you ever able to distinguish between those two statements like any normal person would, well.... come to think of it, the way you go about stuff... you still wouldn't have much of a clue actually.
The cycle of lies is now complete. And so is the comedy... The troll now takes the argument from his antagonist and pretends it was his own. I have been saying for years that top scientists state our universe appears designed. Stu trolled to his death that this was not the case. --- Stu said the following and things like the following for years... Here is what he wrote on 06/03/07 about 5 years ago. "Design defined as intelligent has no scientific basis, neither does the belief in an appearance of intelligent design. It never has. In direct comparison , there is the overwhelmingly sound scientific basis for self organizing arrangements of parts or elements, defined as design."
As I say, any normal person would find no reason to go off on one like you do over something so straightforward. Is this some sort of creationist tactic to make crude and ignorant bullshit comment in place of arguments they don't have? There is nothing inconsistent in that statement and in what I'm saying. The constants appear fine tuned and the constants are fine tuned, have entirely different meanings to any rational person. The problem you have is with yourself.
Is this really what the argument has been revolving around of late, appearance of tuning vs. actual tuning? Just asking.
bullshit... that is what stu tried to change the argument to. After I showed him to be misrepresenting the work of Hawking.