Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

How so? What causes this appearance?

What are you asking?

In every lottery drawing, there is a complex interaction of ping pong balls necessary to for the person who wins. That would make the lottery fine tuned by your definition.

The lottery system is a designed system in which an agent (designer) has the intent (someone to win) for a purpose (to raise money). So yes, the

lottery is a designed system created by an intelligent agent for a reason.

What produces that appearance?

The values in the universe appearing like someone has set the dials specifically intentionally for the purpose of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are you asking?

How does a narrow range of constants needed for life point to design?

The lottery system is a designed system in which an agent (designer) has the intent (someone to win) for a purpose (to raise money).

So you are saying that the agent pre-determines who the winner will be, and then fine tunes the ping pong balls so that specific person wins?

The values in the universe appearing like someone has set the dials specifically intentionally for the purpose of life.

What gives that appearance?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't perceive design anymore?

I have never perceived design, I don't have the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and how that appears as if it were designed.

They show that the constants are constant.

They do, however, that is not what this discussion is about.

That it appears designed is not a fact.

No, actually it is a fact.

And you have no other evidence for this "designer" other than your religious presuppositions? Correct?

Like I have said repeatedly, the evidence of fine tuning supports design. It is a reasonable and logical conclusion.

You have yet to demonstrate that the tuning is falsifiable.

I don't have to the scientists have done so.

Please state clearly when you mean "tuning" and where you mean "the constants are constant".

What I mean by tuning is not significant. What the astrophysicists/cosmologists/physicists mean when they say tuning is that the constants could have had different values but the values they have are so precise and necessary to allow for the existence of life.

The constants being constant are not in context with this discussion.

True. You have yet to demonstrate that the tuning is falsifiable, and you have conceded that "design" is unfalsifiable.

The scientists in the field have determined that fine tuning is falsifiable. I am claiming that the appearance of design, an intent by an agent for a purpose which is very recognizable and supports design.

So who are you to disagree with the experts? Just so you can have a god?

First of all I don't need anyone to agree with me so I can have God. God makes that possible. I can disagree with conclusions that are made by opinion. I am not disagreeing with the scientific data.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does a narrow range of constants needed for life point to design?

I have explained this many times, just what are you not getting?

So you are saying that the agent pre-determines who the winner will be, and then fine tunes the ping pong balls so that specific person wins?

I am saying that the lottery system is a designed system that has been designed for the purpose of raising money by people buying tickets to win the lottery.

What gives that appearance?

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity

.

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

 

[Davian]

I have never perceived design, I don't have the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and how that appears as if it were designed.

Noted.

They do, however, that is not what this discussion is about.


No, actually it is a fact.

No, it is not a fact. It does not appear designed to me.

Like I have said repeatedly, the evidence of fine tuning supports design. It is a reasonable and logical conclusion.

Yet you say experts disagree with this. You have a presupposed conclusion, because you have to have a god.

I don't have to the scientists have done so.

Unevidenced assertion.

What I mean by tuning is not significant. What the astrophysicists/cosmologists/physicists mean when they say tuning is that the constants could have had different values but the values they have are so precise and necessary to allow for the existence of life.

Unevidenced assertion.

The constants being constant are not in context with this discussion.

The scientists in the field have determined that fine tuning is falsifiable.

Unevidenced assertion.

I am claiming that the appearance of design, an intent by an agent for a purpose which is very recognizable and supports design.

You have conceded that design is unfalsifiable. With that, you have lost all support for it.

First of all I don't need anyone to agree with me so I can have God.

Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?

God makes that possible.

Unevidenced assertion.

I can disagree with conclusions that are made by opinion. I am not disagreeing with the scientific data.

Data of which, as you conceded at the top of your post, you lack the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and design.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have explained this many times, just what are you not getting?

You dodge this question every time.

I am saying that the lottery system is a designed system that has been designed for the purpose of raising money by people buying tickets to win the lottery.

That is not what I am talking about, and you know it. This is another example of how you dodge and deceive.

I am saying that the lottery system is a designed system that has been designed for the purpose of raising money by people buying tickets to win the lottery.

Keep dodging.

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Could you use more ellipses? Are you really serious with this?

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.

Why?

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

What is the plan? Where is the evidence for it?

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Why does he say that?

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Temptation is not appearance.

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity

.

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Why does it supply "prima facie evidence of deistic design"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Noted.

No, it is not a fact. It does not appear designed to me.

Are you an astrophysicist/cosmologist/physicist?

Yet you say experts disagree with this. You have a presupposed conclusion, because you have to have a god.

I said that some experts do not come to that conclusion. There are those that do as well.

Unevidenced assertion.

I've presented documentation for the evidence.

Unevidenced assertion.

Unevidenced assertion.

I believe they do have the evidence that they need to determine that. I have presented Luke Barnes and his evidence that provides falsification.

You have conceded that design is unfalsifiable. With that, you have lost all support for it.

I don't recall claiming that design was unfalsifiable or the context in which I might have.

Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?

There are no "experts" on God.

Unevidenced assertion.

I have shown that.

Data of which, as you conceded at the top of your post, you lack the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and design.

Exactly. That is how Scientific data works. We have people that have been educated in their fields to do the testing and experimenting to collect the data and present the findings.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You dodge this question every time.

I've answered and it must be not to your liking because you continue to ask after getting an answer.

That is not what I am talking about, and you know it. This is another example of how you dodge and deceive.

Projection.

Keep dodging.

It is called an answer.

Could you use more ellipses? Are you really serious with this?

You asked.

Why?

Ask him.

What is the plan? Where is the evidence for it?

The evidence is what makes him think there is a plan.

Why does he say that?

Due to the fine tuning...remember.

Temptation is not appearance.

Temptations is not appearance.

Why does it supply "prima facie evidence of deistic design"?

It appears designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've answered and it must be not to your liking because you continue to ask after getting an answer.

Yet another dodge.

Projection.

Yet another dodge.

It is called an answer.

Another dodge.

You asked.

Another dodge.

Ask him.

Another dodge.

The evidence is what makes him think there is a plan.

Why does that evidence indicate a plan?

Due to the fine tuning...remember.

Why does fine tuning point to a plan or design?

It appears designed.

WHY?

 

[Davian]

Are you an astrophysicist/cosmologist/physicist?

No, but the point is that the appearance of design is an opinion, not a fact. Saying that it is a fact does not make it a fact.

I said that some experts do not come to that conclusion. There are those that do as well.

All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. If they have a god, it is a separate presupposition.

I've presented documentation for the evidence.

I believe they do have the evidence that they need to determine that. I have presented Luke Barnes and his evidence that provides falsification.

Not for the falsification of "tuning".

I don't recall claiming that design was unfalsifiable or the context in which I might have.

Here.

There are no "experts" on God.

Twisting my words? Why do you disagree with the experts on the data?

I have shown that.

You have not shown any such thing.

Exactly. That is how Scientific data works. We have people that have been educated in their fields to do the testing and experimenting to collect the data and present the findings.

And you disagree with their findings.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I didn't claim they would, and considering that they are not strongly religious makes my point as well. The fine tuning appears designed in that they are set as if by intent by an agent for a purpose. That is a fact. The fact then is filtered by subjective worldviews and scientific naturalism.

Which is not surprising considering the scientific realm is only concerned with scientific methodology (for the most part) and doesn't delve into the supernatural.


That is just a straw man. I am using them as sources for the sole purpose of showing the scientific agreement of fine tuning. That they don't (or at least some of them don't) come to the conclusion of God being the fine tuner; doesn't mean that He isn't. It means that in the scientific world we look for natural causes for phenomena we find in nature. Even those who believe that God is the tuner in their scientific world do so with the mindset that they wish to find out all they can about the phenomena.

The fine tuning is the fact and I am using them as support of fine tuning, not in support of my position which is supported by it.

They make real observations and collect data that has clearly shown that there is fine tuning of the universe.

What makes it a poor use? The "experts" substantiate the fact that the universe is fine tuned and appears to be designed. That is my position which makes total sense and is a logical and reasonable conclusion.

It is a group of people that are claiming things that are not true and go against what the experts in their fields are claiming. Why should I just accept misinformation and misunderstandings remain? Why should you all decide what is evidence and what is not anyway? You are not the experts.

Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.

Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.

Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.

Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.

No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.

What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position. It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.

We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.

 

[EternalDragon]

Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.

Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.

Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.

Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.

No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.

What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position. It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.

We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.

So in other words we see appearances of design and we see appearances of patterns of similarities in organisms but we are going to go with the conclusion that it is all natural in origin because.....??....an intelligent designer can't be an answer?

I have seen many scientific sources that get things right and also get things wrong (from the Christian perspective) in the same source. A lot of it is assumptions based on the naturalistic viewpoint mixed in with the facts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet another dodge.



Yet another dodge.



Another dodge.



Another dodge.




Another dodge.




Why does that evidence indicate a plan?



Why does fine tuning point to a plan or design?



WHY?

I see you are not really interested in my answers.

 

[bhsmte]

This thread is like, deja vu, all over again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, but the point is that the appearance of design is an opinion, not a fact. Saying that it is a fact does not make it a fact.

I never claimed that Design was a fact.

All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. If they have a god, it is a separate presupposition.

That is simply false. The experts are saying that the fine tuning is real (a fact) but God is separate.

Not for the falsification of "tuning".

Yes, for "tuning".

Here.

Nope.

Originally Posted by Davian

Another of your unevidenced claims.


I do not know what you mean by "apparent" design. As for "design" of the universe, from what you have posted, yes. When you admitted that you lack access to other universes for comparison purposes, you rendered your "design" claim unfalsifiable.

I know the chance of you directly answering a question put to you is near zero, but, tell me, from a scientific point of view, are unfalsifiable claims:
1) significant, or
2) insignificant?

Answer with a 1 or a 2.
​

From a scientific point of view it is considered to be insignificant if something can not be falsified. The answer is 2. __________________

I was answering the unlined question. It had nothing to do with the "design" appearance.

Twisting my words? Why do you disagree with the experts on the data?

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

God makes that possible.
​

You said: Unevidenced assertion.

You said: Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?
​

I said: There are no "experts" on God.

AS you can see, this was not in regards to data but my statement about God not data and it is you twisting words.

You have not shown any such thing.

I have.

And you disagree with their findings.

No I don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.

A shallow observation? What makes it a shallow observation?

Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.

I didn't say that they did.

Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.

Simply false. Provide documented evidence that DESTROYS it.

Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.

Those in the field disagree and I've shown that. What have you shown except your denial? There are very few that disagree and those have had their arguments refuted.

No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.

You do due to your lack of information on the subject.

What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position.

False. Provide evidence to support this statement.

It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.

Because you are already confused with the issue all together.

We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.

There are two positions and you seem to missing that point.

1. Fine Tuning and appearance of design.
2. Fine Tuning and appearance of design as support of Design.

 

[bhsmte]

Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.

Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.

Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.

Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.

No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.

What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position. It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.

We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.

I would agree with you.

Also, the poster states; the appearance of design supports design, but then she goes on to state; she isn't claiming the universe is designed though.

Is that confusing to anyone else, or is it just me.

 

[Davian]

I never claimed that Design was a fact.

Dodge. You claimed the appearance of design was a fact.

That is simply false. The experts are saying that the fine tuning is real (a fact) but God is separate.

All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. Not a fact. As for your God, it is still a no-show.

Yes, for "tuning".

You can't show me where you have shown that the 'tuning' is falsifiable, can you?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Davian

Another of your unevidenced claims.


I do not know what you mean by "apparent" design. As for "design" of the universe, from what you have posted, yes. When you admitted that you lack access to other universes for comparison purposes, you rendered your "design" claim unfalsifiable.

I know the chance of you directly answering a question put to you is near zero, but, tell me, from a scientific point of view, are unfalsifiable claims:
1) significant, or
2) insignificant?

Answer with a 1 or a 2.
​

From a scientific point of view it is considered to be insignificant if something can not be falsified. The answer is 2. __________________

I was answering the unlined question. It had nothing to do with the "design" appearance.

Dodge. The subject was design, not the appearance of design. Without access to other universes, "design" is unfalsifiable.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

God makes that possible.
​

You said: Unevidenced assertion.

You said: Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?
​

I said: There are no "experts" on God.

AS you can see, this was not in regards to data but my statement about God not data and it is you twisting words.

Your statement about God was an unevidenced assertion, was it not? You disagree with the consensus of experts that say the appearance of design is only an illusion, do you not?

I have.

You cannot show where, can you?

No I don't.

The consensus of the experts you have cited conclude that the appearance of design is an illusion. Do you agree with that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I would agree with you.

Also, the poster states; the appearance of design supports design, but then she goes on to state; she isn't claiming the universe is designed though.

Is that confusing to anyone else, or is it just me.

The appearance of design supports design. I can't show the design is actual. I think it supports actual design but that is all that I can do as far as science goes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So in other words we see appearances of design and we see appearances of patterns of similarities in organisms but we are going to go with the conclusion that it is all natural in origin because.....??....an intelligent designer can't be an answer?

I have seen many scientific sources that get things right and also get things wrong (from the Christian perspective) in the same source. A lot of it is assumptions based on the naturalistic viewpoint mixed in with the facts.

No, that isn't what I am saying. Personally, I don't think the universe looks designed anyways. However, the point is, just looking at something like that isn't a scientific observation to begin with, but even if it was, it remains illogical to use sources that ultimately disagree with you as support for your position.