It very elegantly explains their fine tuning - selection towards complexity as an analogue of biological fecundity. How do you figure it doesn’t?
edit4youredit - what needs explaining isn’t the simple presence of “constants”, what demands an explanation is why these constants, which could have taken literally any values, have the values that result in a universe that doesn’t instantly decompose but instead persists for billions of years creating progressively more complexity... seriously...read the link/watch the video and quit yapping in ignorance
What you call complexity is merely stability. God created a stable universe that doesn't instantly decompose. I did watch that part of the video and it still sounds like pure speculation with little hard evidence. You are trying to apply Darwin's flawed theory of evolution to the cosmos and I don't believe it works.
and quit yapping in ignorance
It is natural to get defensive when your favorite theory is criticized, but I'm just being honest. Calm yourself.
It very elegantly explains their fine tuning - selection towards complexity as an analogue of biological fecundity. How do you figure it doesn’t?
edit4youredit - what needs explaining isn’t the simple presence of “constants”, what demands an explanation is why these constants, which could have taken literally any values, have the values that result in a universe that doesn’t instantly decompose but instead persists for billions of years creating progressively more complexity... seriously...read the link/watch the video and quit yapping in ignorance
What you call complexity is merely stability. God created a stable universe that doesn't instantly decompose. I did watch that part of the video and it still sounds like pure speculation with little hard evidence. You are trying to apply Darwin's flawed theory of evolution to the cosmos and I don't believe it works.
It is natural to get defensive when your favorite theory is criticized, but I'm just being honest. Calm yourself.