Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[snowtracks]

Ok Snowy, you presented your evidence. Now your homework assignment is to establish why you think it's evidence for what you are claiming; viz that the Universe was determined. Please include data which establishes that the Universe could have occurred any other way, ie that the parameters of its formation were not immutable.

For extra credit, please find a way of rationalising your quote from The Grand Design with this one which concludes the exact same chapter: "But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit."

like we didn't know hawking is atheist and his latest book would have a naturalism conclusion. admirable of you to watch over some unsuspecting posters that might read a few sentences on a mssg board and change their worldview. if they really are that weak-minded seems it would be best to just let them go.
the contemporary scientific enterprise is locked in to interpreting data to fit into a naturalism framework which means all theories, discoveries, and phenomenon must explained materialistically or make an appeal to the future. so what else could he say even if he thought otherwise? naturalistic researchers, scientists, authors will never interpret data, observation that won't have a materialistic conclusion. for instance - "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." -Richard Dawkins. interesting to read what they say, but the conclusion won't be philosophically unbiased.
-------------------
multiverse is metaphysical speculation; paul davies knows that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book) and hawking knows that as well.
------------------------
given: if 1/10^80 is = one universe atom, then 1/10^120 = one hershey bar
therefore if space energy density increased a hershey bar, and the mass density remained the same = no universe.
but if anyone thinks this ultra-precision margin was a coincidence, by all means go with that.
------------------------------
later there was another 'coincidence': the sun's flaring and chromospheric activity is currently at the lowest level in it's past history and in it's projected future life cycle (total life cycle around 9 billion years). soon, in astronomical time, the sun's hydrogen to helium conversion cycle (last half cycle) commences and will again flair and be hostile to life. so it just happens that mankind enters the world stage at the time when solar hostile flaring is at it's lowest ebb phase.

---

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

Wow!!


Bacteria perform nuclear fission?!?!?!

here's some examples.
The bacteria take zinc and sulfur from the water and combine them to create a byproduct of sphalerite--the sulfide usually reacts with metals such as zinc to create insoluble products.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5266797_sph...ormed.html
Sulfate-reducing bacteria can be traced back to 3.5 billion years ago and are considered to be among the oldest forms of microorganisms, having contributed to the sulfur cycle soon after life emerged on Earth.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...lfur+cycle

---

---

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

---

Your previous attempt at the Fine Tuning argument was refuted tens of pages ago. All that was learned is you don't understand iterative probability and have much disdain for that puddle/hole image macro.

Were you hoping we'd forgotten?

poor guy is doing the best with what he has to work with.