Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

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

No.

Here's your question again:

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?

Notice the bolded part? That's where your assumption is embedded.
You assume that the reason for the universe to be the way it is, is to make life possible. And as formulated, you are asking me why that is the case.

It's just an obfuscated variation of "why do you hit your wife"?

Here's the question formulated so that it doesn't make such assumptions:

Why is the universe the way it is and could it have been any different?

And the answer to that is: we don't know, cosmologists are trying to find out (and priests pretend to know already before asking the question).

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.

You can't calculate the probability of something if you only have a set of exactly 1 example. You also can't calculate the probability of something if you don't know the initial conditions of the system.

Whenever you argue that "chance couldn't have done it", you are by definition appealing to ignorance. Because it's impossible to properly calculate those chances for the reasons I just gave: your sample is to small and you have no idea what the initial conditions are.

As I've said so many times, for all you know, the probability of the universe to be the way it is is exactly 1 in 1.

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

We know next to nothing about the origin of the universe.

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

...while appealing to what isn't known. Appeal to ignorance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You are the one that seems totally confused.

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.

Without the LHC it was unfalsifiable and unverifiable until it could be tested. IF the LHC was not possible or any other means it would have remained so.

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.

My point was that science is not the only means of knowledge.

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.

Prove it. I have always claimed that the fine tuning (real and not an appearance) gives the appearance of design.

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

Nope right there where I've been.

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.

You just have no desire to know the truth do you? The scientists when discovering the values of the constants and their precision in allowing life they claimed it was fine tuned. They did not determine that a fine tuner made it that way or that they thought there was one. Yet, the fine tuning (values and precision) made it appear that there was a tuner. Get it. Please please say you get it.

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.

Do it.

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.

No that was what you were claiming. I have always maintained that the universe is fine tuned and gives the appearance of design. It is your problem that you were so blinded by your own idea of what I was saying that you didn't read what I actually was saying or the scientists for that matter.

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.

Are you delusional?

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

I feel like you are in an alternate universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not the same thing at all.

Yes, it is. You don't like the evidence, so your only recourse is to pretend that it was magically poofed into being by a deity.

How do you know that the three domains didn't just pop into existence?

The same way we know that fingerprints do not just pop into existence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, they are looking for Frankencell not a modern cell which it is no evidence of ever existing or can exist.

Show me a single peer reviewed paper that uses the term "Frankencell".

All known living cells are too complex so they are looking for a imaginary cell that didn't exist.

Please present evidence that it didn't exist, as you claim.

 

[justlookinla]

Show me a single peer reviewed paper that uses the term "Frankencell".

Yep, always fall back on the 'peer review' crutch when you can't actually address the issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

How unlikely that is to occur by chance? Please, show us those calculations.

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

False. We don't know how many universes there are, so you can't know how likely or unlikely our universe is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yep, always fall back on the 'peer review' crutch when you can't actually address the issue.

Unless you find an official scientific article which uses that phrase, it falls under the wording effect and emotional appeal sector.

 

[justlookinla]

Unless you find an official scientific article which uses that phrase, it falls under the wording effect and emotional appeal sector.

"Official"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, always fall back on the 'peer review' crutch when you can't actually address the issue.

The issue is what is found in the scientific literature. Smidlee is the one who won't address it, and neither will you. You just parrot the same lines over and over and over and over. You are impervious to evidence and reason. Only someone looking to stay ignorant would cry foul when someone asks for legitimate scientific sources.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Official"?

As in, not someone's creationism blog. You wouldn't consider "Joe" to be a valid name for god unless there was some valid scripture using it, right? You can't just name things as it suits you.

 

[justlookinla]

As in, not someone's creationism blog. You wouldn't consider "Joe" to be a valid name for god unless there was some valid scripture using it, right? You can't just name things as it suits you.

I'm thinking 'official' is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm thinking 'official' is in the eye of the beholder.

And that is your mistake. There are "official" channels through which scientists communicate their work.

It's kind of part of that whole scientific process thingy... You might have heared of it... It's called the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

And that is your mistake. There are "official" channels through which scientists communicate their work.

It's kind of part of that whole scientific process thingy... You might have heared of it... It's called the scientific method.

Ah..yes..the scientific method. Something that's missing in the fantastical world of atheistic creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm thinking 'official' is in the eye of the beholder.

Then you really have no clue how science works.

 

[justlookinla]

Then you really have no clue how science works.

Ummm....it makes unsubstantiated guesses and suppositions?

 

[Davian]

Ummm....it makes unsubstantiated guesses and suppositions?

Only in your strawman version of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ummm....it makes unsubstantiated guesses and suppositions?

Funny how you can never point to those guesses or suppositions.

 

[mark kennedy]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science"

It's actually a superficial attempt at metaphysics

 

[justlookinla]

Funny how you can never point to those guesses or suppositions.

A human and a pine tree are the products of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[DerelictJunction]

A human and a pine tree is the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

But that is only your guess...or is it a supposition??
The theory of evolution doesn't say that it is ONLY naturalistic mechanisms so your supposition doesn't apply to the theory. Try again.