From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 08:32:53 -0600, sticks    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2/3/2026 2:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:59:19 -0600, sticks    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> [...]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought   
   >>>>> was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the   
   >>>>> impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner.   
   >>>>> Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make   
   >>>>> their point.  It is very effective.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be   
   >>>> predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather   
   >>>> than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?   
   >>>   
   >>> You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you   
   >>> or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe.  I am puzzled   
   >>> then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me.  Please don't.   
   >>   
   >> When someone misrepresents me, I clarify what I wrote or thought to   
   >> show how they are wrong. Can you please do the same here as I wouldn't   
   >> want to misrepresent anyone?   
   >   
   >You could start by acknowledging your question above about what I think   
   >is something you have completely made up.   
      
   It is not something I "completely made up", it is what I concluded   
   from what you wrote:   
      
   "I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought   
   was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with   
   the impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable   
   manner. Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to   
   further make their point.  It is very effective."   
      
   In their book, after lengthy analysis of the mathematically unlikely   
   factors that lead to the anthropic principle, the authors state as one   
   of their two "proofs":   
      
   "The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the   
   complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely   
   improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle." (p 221)   
      
   I made what seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion that when you   
   described their arguments as "excellently done" and "very effective",   
   that you were endorsing their conclusion about the anthropic   
   principle. Are you now saying you don't endorse it? If so, I will   
   unhesitatingly withdraw what I said and unreservedly apologise for   
   causing any misrepresentation of your views.   
      
      
   >I have no idea why, but   
   >assume it is because it is a topic you would like to discuss.  It simply   
   >is missing from anything I have said or what the book attempts to do.   
   >Being someone who has actually read the book, I would think you surely   
   >know this.   
      
   I've just quoted the authors' own conclusion about fine-tuning. What   
   have I missed in the book?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)