From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/3/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Putting aside that your question seems to claim I have made this   
   argument of yours for now.  The important part and something you snipped   
   is the authors stated purpose of the book: "shed light for you on the   
   question of the existence or non-existence of a creator God, one of the   
   most important questions of our lives which is being posed today in   
   completely new terms."  Later I state what matters to me, "The important   
   thing, and the purpose of the book, is the existence or non-existence of   
   God."   
      
   You can dive down any areas of inquiry you wish, but for me the   
   important part is the combined impossibility of the precision of the   
   fine tuning.  The "proof" you selected below to warrant your question I   
   suppose, is from a little further in the book. I get what I need from   
   their Conclusion at the end of chapter 9. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe:   
   "These are only a handful of the most incredible fine-tunings that serve   
   to illustrate the “anthropic principle.” The sum total of all these   
   physical improbabilities is mathematical confirmation that the Universe   
   is not the result of chance. That a creator God exists is the only   
   obvious conclusion. This proof is, in our opinion, as strong as the   
   evidence predicting the heat death of the Universe and of cosmology as   
   we know it. Let us not forget that these different proofs are perfectly   
   independent of each other."   
      
   Bollore, Michel-Yves; Bonnassies, Olivier. God, the Science, the   
   Evidence (pp. 212-213). Palomar. Kindle Edition.   
      
      
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)