The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: neolib who wrote (20322)	2/14/2008 1:49:55 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) of 36917

Do we know that no divine power has had anything to do with the origin of the universe and life? Yes or no. No. Question for you. Can anyone show with even reasonable probability that any divine power had anything to do with the origin of the universe and life? Yes or no? Can't say no, without bringing up an argument, can you? --------------------------------------------------------- Can anyone show with even reasonable probability that any divine power had anything to do with the origin of the universe and life? Yes or no? Its a matter of opinion. In my opinion, yes. Take for one thing the fine-tuning of the universe for life that many physicists and cosmologists have commented on. There seem to me to be three reasonable explanations - that the universe was designed, that the universe is lucky, or that the universe is one of an infinite number of universes and ours just happens to be the lucky one. I consider the one lucky world hypothesis far-fetched. And the infinite worlds hypotheses (sometimes inaccurately called the many worlds hypothesis) is as much a leap of faith as the designer hypothesis. And frankly a less reasonable leap in my opinion. At any rate, of the three possibilities, certainly the designer hypothesis is reasonable. ------------------------------------------------------------ You don't get it. You made a point that NASA had accepted McIntyre's corrections which then made 1934 the warmest year of the past century. Any graph which shows the 1930's, particularly 1934, as being substantially cooler than later years must be wrong. How does one accept that 1934 was the warmest year of the past century and still put forward graphs showing it as a lot cooler? Why don't you explain this to me as a test of whether you can figure anything on climate out by yourself? I've already told you why, and you still can't understand it. A less disagreeable person would just admit they can't answer the question.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next