In response to...
 

....a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.� Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God�, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming�, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

In response to...
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

In response to...
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

I see nothing in this letter which scientifically refutes the previous
article.

Besides - so what?

In response to...
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God

In response to...
 

On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God



Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

In response to...
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:27:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God



Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him?

Prove, scientifically, that he existed.

In response to...
 

On 1/3/15 5:53 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:27:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God



Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him?

Prove, scientifically, that he existed.


That's just silly. :)

In response to...
 

On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God



Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him?

Prove, scientifically, that he existed.


That's just silly. :)

Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god
than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche.

Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a
Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all.



Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with
him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is
plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of
Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the
existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support
modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief
based on faith alone.

In response to...
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God



Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him?

Prove, scientifically, that he existed.


That's just silly. :)

Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god
than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche.

Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a
Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all.



Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with
him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is
plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of
Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the
existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support
modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief
based on faith alone.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God

God is dead.

- Harry Krause

etc., etc.

In response to...
 

On 1/3/2015 10:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God



Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him?

Prove, scientifically, that he existed.


That's just silly. :)

Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god
than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche.

Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a
Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all.



Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with
him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is
plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of
Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the
existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support
modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief
based on faith alone.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God

God is dead.

- Harry Krause

etc., etc.


Harry will be rolling over in his grave trying to solve the mysteries of
the universe. That's his curse. ;-

--


I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off!
Respectfully submitted by Justan