Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[HitchSlap]

You explain this for me. Large amount of code doesn't just popped into existence.

But god/s does.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree 100% Frankengod is fantasy which I'm looking for my God to split the eastern sky and not in a test tube.

Your portrayal of what is going on in science is a complete fabrication.

You explain this for me. Large amount of code doesn't just popped into existence.

Why would it need to?

 

[bhsmte]

You already answered that.



Ok. I use Frankengod instead. While scientist may not name it Frankencell that is exactly what they are hoping to find in their test tubes .

You know, I wouldn't quit your day job and like, try to go into science or something.

 

[florida2]

Your portrayal of what is going on in science is a complete fabrication.

Particularly as no biologist would ever think about trying to grow cells in a test tube.

 

[Loudmouth]

Particularly as no biologist would ever think about trying to grow cells in a test tube.

They aren't looking for modern cells emerging spontaneously in a test tube, which is what Smidlee thinks is going on.

They have looked at how micelles and bi-lipid layers can form so that chemical reactions can be isolated from the environment. As it turns out, this happens abiotically all of the time.

Even more, the "information" found in biomolecules is the same information found in all molecules. A's bind to T's in DNA because of hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen bond information is found in all molecules, even down to water. That information has been around for almost 14 billion years.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For the same reason that no one seriously considers that DNA and fingerprints found at a crime scene just popped into existence from nowhere.

Not the same thing at all. How do you know that the three domains didn't just pop into existence?

 

[Smidlee]

They aren't looking for modern cells emerging spontaneously in a test tube, which is what Smidlee thinks is going on.

Nope, they are looking for Frankencell not a modern cell which it is no evidence of ever existing or can exist. All known living cells are too complex so they are looking for a imaginary cell that didn't exist.

 

[Kunjax]

So then there has to be a creator. Either a mini-creator Frankencell scientist hope to find in a test-tube or God who is greater than creation (just as man is greater than his creations).

What on Earth is a Frankencell?

 

[bhsmte]

What on Earth is a Frankencell?

Sounds like a breakfast cereal.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is simply false. Every time a scientist is claiming fine tuning do you think they are claiming a tuner?

IF they claim fine tuning, yes, they implicitly claim a tuner.

Tuning is an act done by an agent. A tuner.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is a good question. What makes it possible? IF the universe is such that makes life highly improbable according to such highly refined requirements but it has met those highly refined requirements what made that possible?

Your question assumes that life was meant to exist before it existed.

That's an unjustified premise.

That life is possible is not a given.

It is a given, since it exists. Clearly it is possible to exist if it exists.

That life exists in our universe is not just a brute fact that we take as something that just happened by chance when the features of the universe have too many elements to have occurred by chance alone.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What does that even mean? I have linked the scientific verification on fine tuning from the scientist in the field.

No. You linked an opinion piece from the section philosphy and history of physics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is exactly my point.



Which is exactly what I said.

You have been yapping about this subject for so long, you don't even remember your own claims.

This is what you said: At the time it was unfalsifiable without the means to falsify it. The particle was unverifiable without the means to find it

The Higgs Boson was never unverifiable or unfalsifiable.

True. Are you saying though that nothing can be known except through scientific methods?

When it comes to knowledge on how the universe works : YES.
I'll nuance it out of intellectual honesty: the scientific method is the best method that we know of to gather knowledge on how the world works. Is there a better method? Not that I know of.

This is your problem. That is not what is claimed. It IS fine tuned.

This is amazing. Do you really think that I don't remember your claims from several pages back or from other threads? It's only a few days ago that I called you on the fact that you tended to omit the word "appearance". To which you replied that you didn't mean to and that you "always claimed that the universe appears fine tuned". Now, you're flat out contradicting yourself. Again.

It seems that you aren't even sure yourself what it is exactly that you are claiming.

For the record: no, it's not an established fact that the universe is "fine tuned". As that would require factual, empirical evidence of intent, purpose, planning and a tuner.

It is a real phenomena. The real fine tuning APPEARS DESIGNED. You continue to get confused on that. The fine tuning is the scientific term that scientists have used to define the phenomena of the values of the universe being to the exact measurement for life to exist. It APPEARS DESIGNED due to the fact that those values could have been different but they are exactly where they need to be for life to exist. It APPEARS as if they were planned with an intent of an agent for a purpose. Do you get it now?

I don't have the time nore the energy to do so... but perhaps I should make time and free energy to dig through this thread and the previous one and contrast all your contradicting statements, centralized in a single post.

This is not what you were previously claiming.
A few days ago, you were saying that the univer appears fine-tuned and that this appearance supported the possibility of design.

If you are constantly going to change your claims and pretend that you didn't change them, then this discussion becomes an even bigger waste of time then it already was.

Perhaps you should try to get your act together before continuing the conversation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What makes it appear to be designed is that it appears since the values are so fine tuned to allow life that it looks as if it were an intent planned by an agent for a purpose.

Here's a funny extension of your reasoning....

Yes, the universe is such that it supports / allows for life to exist. Let's, for the sake of fun, go with your reasoning that this configuration means that it was fine-tuned for life to exist.

The universe is also such that it supports / allows for things like gamma radiation, black holes, meteorites, super volcano's, mega tsunami's, etc.

Like the EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICIST Neil deGrass Tyson and EDUCATED EXPERIENCED COSMOLOGIST Lawrence Krauss once said: it looks like the universe is out to kill us.

So, applying your type of reasoning, I have come to the following conclusion:

The universe is fine-tuned to bring forward living systems only to then obliterate it in the most horrible painfull ways imaginable.


So, really, the universe is fine-tuned to bring forward pain, death, suffering and untold evil.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Like I have said many times, it would not be like someone winning the lottery once, but over and over like over 30 times. Someone would be calling it rigged.

Ok. So where are those other 29 universes that allow for life to exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

A fact in Science is something that is observed and can be over and over again.

Would you call it a "fact" that it takes 90465 days (or 247.68 years) for Pluto to complete an orbit?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmmmm, as a programmer by trade, I could get on board if the ultimate creator was a computer programmer. That would make me a priest or something. Definitely a holy one.

Do you think that would that make Knuth's The Art of Programming series a religious text?

As a software engineer myself...

IF we start up a cult and demand to be worshipped as gods, then I demand that our holy scriptures are the books known as "Design Patterns" and "Refactoring".

But for the record, I don't want to take credit for "programming" DNA. I don't wish to be seen as an amateur. It would also kind of look bad if we make Design Patterns and Refactoring holy books and methods, while clearly none of those common sense practices were applied in our so-called greatest job: life.

Perhaps we can pass it off as a school project or something, from the time when we were still noobs who didn't know what the hell they were doing.

But it's probably better for everyone to just stick to the biological explanation. That way, nobody looks bad, we keep our credibility and..... it would actually make sense. ;-)

 

[bhsmte]

You have been yapping about this subject for so long, you don't even remember your own claims.

This is what you said: At the time it was unfalsifiable without the means to falsify it. The particle was unverifiable without the means to find it

The Higgs Boson was never unverifiable or unfalsifiable.



When it comes to knowledge on how the universe works : YES.
I'll nuance it out of intellectual honesty: the scientific method is the best method that we know of to gather knowledge on how the world works. Is there a better method? Not that I know of.




This is amazing. Do you really think that I don't remember your claims from several pages back or from other threads? It's only a few days ago that I called you on the fact that you tended to omit the word "appearance". To which you replied that you didn't mean to and that you "always claimed that the universe appears fine tuned". Now, you're flat out contradicting yourself. Again.

It seems that you aren't even sure yourself what it is exactly that you are claiming.

For the record: no, it's not an established fact that the universe is "fine tuned". As that would require factual, empirical evidence of intent, purpose, planning and a tuner.




I don't have the time nore the energy to do so... but perhaps I should make time and free energy to dig through this thread and the previous one and contrast all your contradicting statements, centralized in a single post.

This is not what you were previously claiming.
A few days ago, you were saying that the univer appears fine-tuned and that this appearance supported the possibility of design.

If you are constantly going to change your claims and pretend that you didn't change them, then this discussion becomes an even bigger waste of time then it already was.

Perhaps you should try to get your act together before continuing the conversation.

Standard operating procedure from this poster.

Despite the pages and pages of posts clearly showing what you and many others have pointed out over a long time now, watch the strong denials come about the same.

It is really an amazing thing to watch in action.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your question assumes that life was meant to exist before it existed.

My question assumes nothing, it is a question directed at you.

That's an unjustified premise.

It was a question in regard to the actual condition of our universe. The values that we find are considered knowing what we do of what is required for life and how unlikely that is to occur by chance.

It is a given, since it exists. Clearly it is possible to exist if it exists.

Yes, it is possible but knowing what we know it is not a given.

Argument from ignorance.

No, actually it is an argument from what is known.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. You linked an opinion piece from the section philosphy and history of physics.

I linked numerous links and one was from a top Astrophysicists and not about philosophy and history of physics. I see you didn't even look at them.