Food for thought

[Roy]

no phank it was not from the internet.

Really? You independently made the same error in transcription that is found on thousands of websites?

Roy

[jordanriver]

Really? You independently made the same error in transcription that is found on thousands of websites?

Roy

from PAGE 122 of MY COPY of Hawking's A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME?

I found one when I googled "quote stephen hawking a brief history of time "before it ever reached its present state"
from A BLOGGER.

for all I know he copy pasted me,


but "present state" is a term Hawking uses, so its an easy mistake,

He uses it on p, 55 of the same book,

or a different edition PAGE 57
http://books.google.com/books?id=oZh...=state&f=false


BUT if you insist it was a deliberate lie, well, you can believe what you want to believe.

[jordanriver]

for the record I usually do not trust the internet, having been burned so many times when I first started doing these debates.

if Roy and others insist though, (and to make it easier on me, instead of having so much to type) I can just as easily take a picture of the pages from now on with my smart phone and post them to these discussions.

[Roy]

Really? You independently made the same error in transcription that is found on thousands of websites?

from PAGE 122 of MY COPY of Hawking's A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME?

Since you have evaded, I'll ask once more: are you claiming to have independently made the same transcription error that is found on thousands of websites?

I found one when I googled "quote stephen hawking a brief history of time "before it ever reached its present state"
from A BLOGGER.

for all I know he copy pasted me,

Only one? I found hundreds. Many are years old, and so were not copied from you.

BUT if you insist it was a deliberate lie, well, you can believe what you want to believe.

I think you knew of the quote beforehand - but not well enough to spot the error - and found a handy-but-inaccurate web 'source' to copy from in order to avoid having to find and transcribe it yourself. I may be wrong. If I am not wrong, then your claim that you did not get the quote from the internet is a deliberate lie.

You could of course clarify exactly how you came to post a misquote. That might exonerate you.

Or you could take your usual course of evasion, vagueness, inconsistency, inaccuracy and affrontedness. That would not.

Roy

[jordanriver]

Since you have evaded, I'll ask once more: are you claiming to have independently made the same transcription error that is found on thousands of websites?

Roy

yes.

Only one? I found hundreds. Many are years old, and so were not copied from you.

not so sure about that, I made that transcription error as Neocon_Voter in the Big Bang Singularity Stephen Hawking and God thread on the old TWEB, not sure how long ago that was.

here is that old post, not sure what the context was, I just saved my part

[jordanriver]

and for ROY , just in case I made another mistake citing Millers Finding Darwin's God (softcover copy) I'll take a picture of it and post it
page 228 Millers FINDING DARWINS GOD for ROY WHO IS BEING A DORK.jpg

[Roy]

yes.

not so sure about that, I made that transcription error as Neocon_Voter in the Big Bang Singularity Stephen Hawking and God thread on the old TWEB, not sure how long ago that was.

here is that old post, not sure what the context was, I just saved my part

Curiouser and curiouser.

Since you mention the result of the Dover trial, your post must postdate 2005. But this particular misquote predated the trial - see for example here. However, there's another mistake in your longer quote that I can't find anywhere, so I believe it was you that mistranscribed Hawking. You may be responsible for many of the other similar misquotes out there.

Roy

[phank]

Meanwhile, iet's not lose sight of the existence of a quote-mining industry, which has somehow persuaded mossrose that people who have dedicated their lives to the study of evolutionary biology, secretly believe that the entire field is a fraud. I wonder if she would speculate as to their motivation for either choosing fraud as a career, or admitting it.

[jordanriver]

Meanwhile, iet's not lose sight of the existence of a quote-mining industry, .........

If I was part of an "industry" I could afford to hire a proofreader

[shunyadragon]

yes.


not so sure about that, I made that transcription error as Neocon_Voter in the Big Bang Singularity Stephen Hawking and God thread on the old TWEB, not sure how long ago that was.

here is that old post, not sure what the context was, I just saved my part

This is true, but what is not known is what is the possible range of the constants in formation of a universe. It is possible that there is very little or possibly no range in the constants is possible. They may be set by Natural Law. Then again in a multiverse there may be possibly billions of universes, of which many form with the correct constants regardless of the possible range of the values for the constants.

The bottom line is the concept of 'fine tuning' is weak and hypothetical. The best anyone can say is the universe 'appears' to be 'fine tuned.' Not much of an argument.