I

 

just laugh at these people anymore.

I really do.

Evolution may explain values of the fundamental constants

I look at it like this:

You know?

If you would try to find something that was true?

As opposed to trying to disprove something you cant?

Ya might get along with your business a lil better.

Fact is

certain types of these people just cant stand the universe having a creation event,

or there being "initial conditions" present 

BEFORE 

the creation event.

So they invent all kinds of elaborate ways to get around the evidence they dont like.

Thats not science folks.

They conjecture things like:

"The initial conditions of the universe 

must have evolved over time." etc.

Okay.

Great.

Awesome.

Have it your way. 

HERE IS THE PROBLEM 

YOURE NOT SOLVING 

IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM:

HOW DID WHAT THEY 

"EVOLVED" FROM

GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH?

"...he conjectures 

(an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information)

that the conditions needed for fluid motion in and among living cells could have emerged later on in cosmic history."

"For decades, physicists have debated the possible explanation for a striking fact of our universe – that the values of many physical constants appear just right for the existence of the world we see around us. Star formation, for example, requires both hydrogen and helium. But this condition depends on a very specific value of the strong nuclear force – any weaker than it actually is and there would have been no helium; but any stronger and all the hydrogen would have converted (to helium)."

(let alone gravity

Let alone the mass of subatomic particles

let alone just the right amount of oxygen on the earth etc

but I digress...)

"Some scientists argue that this apparent (Apparent?) 

fine-tuning provides evidence 

of design in the universe, 

perhaps even the existence of God."

(That is based off of what we can see and quantifiably measure.)

"Others instead have mooted the possibility of a myriad of different universes – whether existing simultaneously or one after another – with physical conditions varying very slightly from one to the next. We would then necessarily exist in that universe suited to generating life."

(We just ended up in the one out of kazillions! How convenient!

That? 

That is based on absolutely nothing observable or measurable, yet these two views are routinely given false equivalence to one another. 

You might wanna ask yourself why that is exactly.

"sci·ence

the systematic study 

of the structure and behavior 

of the physical and natural world 

through:

 observation, 

experimentation, 

and the testing of theories 

against the evidence obtained."

"Still other researchers have postulated that the ultimate theory of everything – still to be worked out – would logically require the constants to have the values that they do."

("For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow

I aint waiting on nothin from these guys.

I already got the answer(s) they seek.)

All of the following then

 "evolved" from something?

It Takes 26 Fundamental Constants To Give Us Our Universe, But They Still Don't Give Everything

Okay then:

What exactly did they "evolve" from?

And what exactly started the process off?

I'm serious, I just laugh at em anymore.

Here is another trick they like to play on ya and I have seen this several times now:

The following is from a review of the book:

"IF they are human inventions 

then they need special attention of a human 

to come out just right."

We invented the ways in which we are measuring the fundamental constants of our universe, 

so of course they will appear "fine-tuned" to us 

this argument kinda goes like that.

But just like the reviewer said:

"The author of the book is inverting the dependence. It isn't the fundamental constants depending upon how we measure them (The "units" we use to do such), but rather, the units themselves depend on the value of the fundamental constants."

Okay, so once again:

What exactly did they

(The fundamental constants 

of our universe)

 "evolve" 

from?

And what exactly started the process off?

I aint waiting for nothin from these people. They're the ones that need to play catch up. It's practically clownish at this point how they try and work around what they dont like about what science is proving.

Anybody 

anywhere 

minimal prep time 

any subject.