Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
Here is food for thought.
In the video he claims that:
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
of the universe cannot support human life. ****************************************************
So by his logic.
The surface area of this planet we call home is so finely tuned to support human life, that the total percentage of places in the entire universe that can do the job are;
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call home.
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
We fit in the part of the Universe lif as we know it arose and diversified, not the other way around, fool. But I gess you were too busy trying to think of some sort of "logical" rebutal to the video. You failed.
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > Here is food for thought.
> > In the video he claims that:
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > of the universe cannot support human life. > > ****************************************************
> > So by his logic.
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > do the job are;
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > home.
. .
> We fit in the part of the Universe lif as we know it arose
You got the last 4 words wrong.
> and diversified, not the other way around, fool.
So matter didn't diversify, arise, and fit into the part of the universe we inhabit?
I mean, that's what you'e saying right? <--> reversed.
> But I gess you were too busy trying to think of some sort of "logical" rebutal to the video.
I don't even need logic to discredit this video. He does it all on his own.
You do realise, this fraud is banned on youtube right? You do realise, that's not even his own voice, right?
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
So if you take your car to the mechanics and he detunes all the other cars in the shop, your satisfied that yours is now finely tuned?
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
Interesting idea.
We can eliminate about 70% of it right off, since humans cannot survive in water.
We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned for human life.
Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human life?
Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi, the Sahara, the Namib.
Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you say?
And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and _Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
> > > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > > Here is food for thought.
> > > In the video he claims that:
> > > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > > of the universe cannot support human life. > > > ****************************************************
> > > So by his logic.
> > > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > > do the job are;
> > > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > > home.
> . > .
> > We fit in the part of the Universe lif as we know it arose
> You got the last 4 words wrong.
Evasion, noted.
> > and diversified, not the other way around, fool.
> So matter didn't diversify, arise, and fit into the part of the > universe we inhabit?
Whee did I even hint at that?
> I mean, that's what you'e saying right? <--> reversed.
Wrong.
> > But I gess you were too busy trying to think of some sort of "logical" rebutal to the video.
> I don't even need logic to discredit this video. He does it all on his > own.
Well, it's a good thing you've avoided using logic then, isn't it?
> You do realise, this fraud is banned on youtube right?
Where was the "fraud"?
> You do realise, that's not even his own voice, right?
Irrelevent.
> > You failed.
> I never fail.
Sorry to break this to you, but you are awake now, this is not your dream world.
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > Here is food for thought.
> > In the video he claims that:
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > of the universe cannot support human life. > > ****************************************************
> > So by his logic.
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > do the job are;
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > home.
> So if you take your car to the mechanics and he detunes all the other > cars in the shop, your satisfied that yours is now finely tuned?- Hide quoted text -
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
I am not the author of the video in question, so perhaps instead of accusing me of being in error you should take the matter up with the author of the video instead.
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
You also seem to have missed the fact that before he presented this figure he said:
"lets assume ... that every single star in every single galaxy has an earth-like planet orbiting it"
So I believe you should at the very least admit that your comments are in error.
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
Bwahahahaaaaaaaa ............... With that same type of deranged lunacy - a "star wars" missle that explodes 100 miles from its incoming target missle is a success.
It is not according to "his math" - it is according to claims made by ignorant creationists - like you. ( You know - like the type who changes the goal posts by ignoring the fact that the discussion was about a "fine tuned UNIVERSE - NOT a fine tuned earth!)
> > > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > > Here is food for thought.
> > > In the video he claims that:
> > > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > > of the universe cannot support human life. > > > ****************************************************
> > > So by his logic.
> > > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > > do the job are;
> > > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > > home.
> > So if you take your car to the mechanics and he detunes all the other > > cars in the shop, your satisfied that yours is now finely tuned?
> I'd say my car was now "special".
Fair enough, then it matches you, who are also "spacial", in the "Special Olympics" definition of the term.
The difference being is that they didn't choose to be "special", but you DID choose to be a retard. HTH.
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
So you reject the claim that the universe is fine tuned, and retreat to the claim that certain portions of the surface of the earth are fine tuned.
Are you surprised that we live in a place we find habitable?
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> Here is food for thought.
> In the video he claims that:
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> of the universe cannot support human life. > ****************************************************
> So by his logic.
> The surface area of this planet we call home is > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > do the job are;
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > home.
It looks like it was designed just for life as we know it, eh?
Of course.
There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to believe in fairy tales like evolution. The same speciation divergence that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > Here is food for thought.
> > In the video he claims that:
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > of the universe cannot support human life. > > ****************************************************
> > So by his logic.
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > do the job are;
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > home.
> It looks like it was designed just for life as we know it, eh?
Only if you realize that "life as we know it" has shaped the planet to fit it. The early Earth would not have supported most modern life.
> Of course.
Of course, if you remain ignorant.....
> There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to > believe in fairy tales like evolution.
Your own explanation is not reasonable, and evolution is a scientific theory, not a "fairy tale". Ironically, you choose to believe ancient texts, which record folk tales, over the scientific evidence.
>The same speciation divergence > that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
Speciation has been observed many times. You keep ignoring the evidence.
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > Here is food for thought.
> > In the video he claims that:
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > of the universe cannot support human life. > > ****************************************************
> > So by his logic.
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > do the job are;
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > home.
> So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
> Interesting idea.
> We can eliminate about 70% of it right off, since humans cannot > survive in water.
> We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans > cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned > for human life.
> Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans > to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the > Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human > life?
> Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi, > the Sahara, the Namib.
> Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
> We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you > say?
> And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned > for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and > _Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
> Finely-tuned? Heh.
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Right. Obviously fine tuned.
If it were not fine tuned then even evolution would not be able to take place. Right?
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > Here is food for thought.
> > In the video he claims that:
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > of the universe cannot support human life. > > ****************************************************
> > So by his logic.
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > do the job are;
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > home.
> I am not the author of the video in question, so perhaps instead of > accusing me of being in error you should take the matter up with the > author of the video instead.- Hide quoted text -
>> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of >> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>> > Here is food for thought.
>> > In the video he claims that:
>> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>> > of the universe cannot support human life. >> > ****************************************************
>> > So by his logic.
>> > The surface area of this planet we call home is >> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total >> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can >> > do the job are;
>> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call >> > home.
>> So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
>> Interesting idea.
>> We can eliminate about 70% of it right off, since humans cannot >> survive in water.
>> We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans >> cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned >> for human life.
>> Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans >> to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the >> Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human >> life?
>> Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi, >> the Sahara, the Namib.
>> Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
>> We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you >> say?
>> And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned >> for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and >> _Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
>> Finely-tuned? Heh.
>> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>Right. Obviously fine tuned.
>If it were not fine tuned then even evolution would not be able to >take place. Right?
Evolution fine tunes life to survive on Earth.
-- Bob.
Blessed are the Fundamentalists, for they shall inhibit the earth.
> > > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > > Here is food for thought.
> > > In the video he claims that:
> > > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > > of the universe cannot support human life. > > > ****************************************************
> > > So by his logic.
> > > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > > do the job are;
> > > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > > home.
> > It looks like it was designed just for life as we know it, eh?
> Only if you realize that "life as we know it" has shaped the planet to > fit it. The early Earth would not have supported most modern life.
> > Of course.
> Of course, if you remain ignorant.....
> > There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to > > believe in fairy tales like evolution.
> Your own explanation is not reasonable, and evolution is a scientific > theory, not a "fairy tale". Ironically, you choose to believe ancient > texts, which record folk tales, over the scientific evidence.
> >The same speciation divergence > > that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
> Speciation has been observed many times. You keep ignoring the > evidence.
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
ATTN LURKERS. This subject is a prime example of the evolutionist double standard/ double talk.
The universe is NOT fine tuned if it is to show creation
BUT
The universe IS fine tuned to allow life to evolve.
Without the finely tuned processes, not even evolution could take place.
>> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of >> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>> > Here is food for thought.
>> > In the video he claims that:
>> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>> > of the universe cannot support human life. >> > ****************************************************
>> > So by his logic.
>> > The surface area of this planet we call home is >> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total >> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can >> > do the job are;
>> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call >> > home.
>> I am not the author of the video in question, so perhaps instead of >> accusing me of being in error you should take the matter up with the >> author of the video instead.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>Guilt by association.
You are.
-- Bob.
Blessed are the Fundamentalists, for they shall inhibit the earth.
>> > > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of >> > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>> > > Here is food for thought.
>> > > In the video he claims that:
>> > > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>> > > of the universe cannot support human life. >> > > ****************************************************
>> > > So by his logic.
>> > > The surface area of this planet we call home is >> > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total >> > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can >> > > do the job are;
>> > > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>> > > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>> > > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call >> > > home.
>> > It looks like it was designed just for life as we know it, eh?
>> Only if you realize that "life as we know it" has shaped the planet to >> fit it. The early Earth would not have supported most modern life.
>> > Of course.
>> Of course, if you remain ignorant.....
>> > There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to >> > believe in fairy tales like evolution.
>> Your own explanation is not reasonable, and evolution is a scientific >> theory, not a "fairy tale". Ironically, you choose to believe ancient >> texts, which record folk tales, over the scientific evidence.
>> >The same speciation divergence >> > that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
>> Speciation has been observed many times. You keep ignoring the >> evidence.
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>ATTN LURKERS. >This subject is a prime example of the evolutionist double standard/ >double talk.
>The universe is NOT fine tuned if it is to show creation
>BUT
>The universe IS fine tuned to allow life to evolve.
>Without the finely tuned processes, not even evolution could take >place.
Lying, scientifically illiterate arsehole.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't.
> > > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of > > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
> > > Here is food for thought.
> > > In the video he claims that:
> > > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
> > > of the universe cannot support human life. > > > ****************************************************
> > > So by his logic.
> > > The surface area of this planet we call home is > > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total > > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can > > > do the job are;
> > > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
> > > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
> > > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call > > > home.
> > So if you take your car to the mechanics and he detunes all the other > > cars in the shop, your satisfied that yours is now finely tuned?- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I'd say my car was now "special".-
But not finely tuned? Your argument seemed to be that tuning was relative.
> There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to >believe in fairy tales like evolution. The same speciation divergence >that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
ghosts can't design anything. and creationism is a ghost based view of reality
|
