Jeez. Do you have to be so belligerent about being smarter than me?
I'm not prepared to conclude I am smarter than you, as I only have two data points (posts) to go by...
I don't remember saying it didn't...
Yes, it's intrinsic and not necessarily obvious in this type of argument. As is often the case, the underlying premises need to be surfaced to properly evaluate it.
Take a look at this, as likely relevant, whether or not you've thought about it in detail.
Carter's SAP and Barrow and Tipler's WAP have been dismissed as truisms or trivial tautologies, that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form (the conclusion is identical to the premise) and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different," which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.
That seems to be the core of this issue with what you are saying, and arguments of this type in general. Indeed, if things were different, they would have been different. But in fact things are they way they actually are. That we might not have perceived them in the same way, or at all, if things were different, doesn't actually matter.
Models like evolution?
Yes, and in fact evolution is -also- supported by the evidence of how things are. My point being that the anthropic argument doesn't actually argue for or against either that or "creationism" (another point of contention we'd probably have, and will avoid in the interests of brevity, but invariably arguments end up being of the form of "six day creation is unscientific, therefore... mumble mumble... all religion is unscientific") . I have no issue with "evolution occurs", but do with "-only- evolution occurs". The latter assertion is untestable and unscientific, and the fact atheists need to use that implication on a personal level when using the term "evolution" doesn't change that.
Again, not something I recall saying. Anyway, weren't some ancients pretty hot on the idea of direct intervention being required for all manner of other things, like the sun coming up in the morning, or the end of winter?
I inferred this in terms of your apparent basic stance of considering science to be a process of "closing gaps" of the erroneous notions of historical religions. I suggest actually reviewing the defining documents of presently-existing religions (the ones that you or I actually care about), would show this doesn't really characterize history. Events that were everyday events were written about as if they were, and miraculous events were considered so in the same way as we would today. That is, there hasn't been a broad change in viewpoint on whether a given event would be of a non-miraculous or miraculous nature between then and now. That doesn't change even if you don't believe miracles occur--the present-day response would likely be "yes, that would be a miracle, but I don't believe it actually ever happened" rather than "it makes sense that the ancients would think that turning water into wine would be a miracle, but now because of science we know it actually happened because of X, and nowadays we wouldn't even think of that as a miracle".
Never read him.
His "memes" have been particularly effective, then...
Why don't you try not being such a condescending dick to people just because you think you know better than they do?
Avoiding suboptimal advocacy, really, which is probably the best you've encountered due to "Christian niceness". You are one out of many people who will read this, and direct, or "aggressive", refutation is most memorable. By tomorrow, you will have forgotten my username, if you even took note of it in he first place. My argument, though, maybe not. The contention between you on I on a personal level for this post doesn't matter in the long run, and isn't even really relevant to my purposes or the purposes of an internet forum. Don't take it personally.