Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Loudmouth]

You take one example and apply them to all. That is dishonest.

That's exactly what you are doing.

the Planck time, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. If the density of matter at the Planck time had differed from the critical density by as little as one part in 10^60, the universe would have either exploded so rapidly that galaxies wouldn’t have formed, or collapsed so quickly that life would never have appeared. In practical terms: if our universe, which contains 10^80 protons and neutrons, had even one more grain of sand in it – or one grain less – we wouldn’t be here. Fine-tuning expert Dr. Robin Collins elucidates these points in an article entitled, The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe

I meant a scientific reference., and the evidence backing those calculations.

This equation is based on the fact that since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

And where is the evidence that this equation is accurate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That does nothing to refute the argument. It is just an example of a random process.



I didn't ignore it. I demonstrated that 30 specific people winning the lottery is exactly the same probability of you winning 30 times in a row. Didn't you read it?

What you are not understanding is not that the probability changes but the gullibility of the people in charge thinking that I could win 30 times in a row some simultaneously in different states.

If string theorists claim that it would take 10 to the 500 power of other universes to come up with one like ours, I think that refutes your lottery analogy.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you are not understanding is not that the probability changes but the gullibility of the people in charge thinking that I could win 30 times in a row some simultaneously in different states.

The only gullibility is you thinking that fine tuning evidences a designer.

If string theorists claim that it would take 10 to the 500 power of other universes to come up with one like ours, I think that refutes your lottery analogy.

I have already showed you that I can produce the same probabilities with the last 40 lottery winners.

 

[HitchSlap]

The only gullibility is you thinking that fine tuning evidences a designer.



I have already showed you that I can produce the same probabilities with the last 40 lottery winners.

It's no use. She wants to believe what she needs to so as to protect her worldview.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What you are not understanding is not that the probability changes but the gullibility of the people in charge thinking that I could win 30 times in a row some simultaneously in different states.

If string theorists claim that it would take 10 to the 500 power of other universes to come up with one like ours, I think that refutes your lottery analogy.

The only universes which would contain sentient life would be those few winners. And you can't really count us lucky to be in a "winning" universe, because there would be no "us" in a losing universe.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how probable an event that already occurred was prior to its occurance; trying to state that being improbable makes a creator necessary is a form of hindsight bias.

For example, the chances roughly of a person who has 4 kids of them all being the same gender is 1/16. However, if they already have 3 kids of the same gender, the chances of the 4th being the same gender of their siblings is 1/2. Probability only compounds upon itself for events that HAVEN'T happened, once any given event along the path to our universe having humans in it happens, our species became that much more probable. Sure, an undefinable number of events could have occurred to prevent me from being here to post, but the fact of the matter is those events didn't happen. Thus, the moment this is posted, the probability of it being posted is 100%. Because it will have become a past event.

 

[bhsmte]

It's no use. She wants to believe what she needs to so as to protect her worldview.

No question.

We have a text book example here, with all the defense mechanisms in full view and on overdrive.

 

[Davian]

Give it up, DH.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Leave her to do that.

That answer of hers was indeed the last straw.

I think I should be proud that I stuck with it for this long ha?

You have done well, but you have to know when to stop - she doesn't. She is making unfalsifiable claims from an infallible position, so merely pointing out the flaws in her arguments is not going to slow her down.

Religions beliefs are like a house of cards, secured in a bank vault - the door cannot be opened to scrutiny, lest the lightest breeze knock it down.

 

[HitchSlap]

You have done well, but you have to know when to stop - she doesn't. She is making unfalsifiable claims from an infallible position, so merely pointing out the flaws in her arguments is not going to slow her down.

Religions beliefs are like a house of cards, secured in a bank vault - the door cannot be opened to scrutiny, lest the lightest breeze knock it down.

Which, she can't do, of course, because she's afraid of being branded "never a True Christian."

 

[bhsmte]

You have done well, but you have to know when to stop - she doesn't. She is making unfalsifiable claims from an infallible position, so merely pointing out the flaws in her arguments is not going to slow her down.

Religions beliefs are like a house of cards, secured in a bank vault - the door cannot be opened to scrutiny, lest the lightest breeze knock it down.

Indeed. The constant; responding to a question with her own question, dabbing her feet in the water and than backing off when challenged and then dabbing back in the water when she feels it is safe, is something to behold.

IMO, this case really comes down to one simple thing; the poster is not willing to admit their beliefs are on faith alone and they have a strong personal desire to convince themselves, they have objective evidence to support their beliefs.

The people who acknowledge they believe on faith are not as vulnerable to reality, but the ones who desperately desire to have objective evidence, must experience quite a bit of inner turmoil when their positions are challenged.

 

[HitchSlap]

Indeed. The constant; responding to a question with her own question, dabbing her feet in the water and than backing off when challenged and then dabbing back in the water when she feels it is safe, is something to behold.

IMO, this case really comes down to one simple thing; the poster is not willing to admit their beliefs are on faith alone and they have a strong personal desire to convince themselves, they have objective evidence to support their beliefs.

The people who acknowledge they believe on faith are not as vulnerable to reality, but the ones who desperately desire to have objective evidence, must experience quite a bit of inner turmoil when their positions are challenged.

Exactly. I'm not sure which position is worse, though. Telling science to take a hike and ignore the whole of reality, or accept reality and try to stuff it into your religious beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. I'm not sure which position is worse, though. Telling science to take a hike and ignore the whole of reality, or accept reality and try to stuff it into your religious beliefs.

I was referring to the believers like say sfs, or diz, who acknowledge well evidenced science as reality, but still have faith in their religious beliefs and acknowledge them as faith beliefs.

The fundamentalists that tell science to take a hike are another story entirely.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are several factors that have to be within very tight parameters for life to exist.

So?

how do you go from "we live in a universe in which we can live" to "therefor it's intentionally rigged for life to exist"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Part of the problem is that "fine tuning" has many meanings, and they are used interchangeably. As Oncedeceived is using it, it simply means that there is a narrow range of universes that life would appear . . . maybe. One example of fine tuning that has a known natural explanation is the Earth. The size, distance from the Sun, presence of water, and other values are all finely tuned, but we would expect to see such a planet appear in a universe with this many planets.



The term has been loaded from the beginning. As posters have shown, as soon as they use the term "fine tuning" they pretend it is the same as using "fine tuner". Oncedeceived plays this game all of the time, trying to declare that scientists support her beliefs that there is a designer because they describe the universe as fine tuned.

I know this and you know this. Oncedeceived doesn't want to know this. Which is what I was trying to make here understand. But she doesn't want to understand. She's obviously a literalist unable to put terms into proper context and understand that words can mean different things in different sentences.

We can also say from a biological perspective that life is "designed". We off course mean that it was "designed" by a process powered by natural forces and through a natural "filter". But say that to oncedeceived (or justlookinla or many others here) and all they will hear is "designed ha? therefor: designer".

It's incredibly annoying. I don't know what to do to make these people understand this. So I considered it my best shot to play there "literalist" game and simply stop using words of which I know in advance that they would misunderstad and/or misuse them.

I don't know what the correct strategy is here. There probably is none. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water...

 

[HitchSlap]

So?

how do you go from "we live in a universe in which we can live" to "therefor it's intentionally rigged for life to exist"?

As a former Christian, I can empathize with this thought process. It's accepted, a priori, that god exists, so naturally he 'did it,' it's just a matter of time before we can prove it, and why don't all the rest of you unChristians just see what we see, type mentality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have done well, but you have to know when to stop - she doesn't. She is making unfalsifiable claims from an infallible position, so merely pointing out the flaws in her arguments is not going to slow her down.

Religions beliefs are like a house of cards, secured in a bank vault - the door cannot be opened to scrutiny, lest the lightest breeze knock it down.

I don't remember who said it... But it reminds me of the saying: "you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themself into..."

It certainly applies here.

I like a challenge though, lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

As a former Christian, I can empathize with this thought process. It's accepted, a priori, that god exists, so naturally he 'did it,' it's just a matter of time before we can prove it, and why don't all the rest of you unChristians just see what we see, type mentality.

I never was a theist. I had a secular education and religion was a non-issue. The first time I picked up a bible, I was 16 or 17. And the only reason I picked it up was because I switched schools. From a state school to a catholic one. I got expelled from the religious class after a couple of months for the rest of the year, because I argued to much LOL.

It just amazed me. It was such obvious nonsense in my eyes. That whole world was completely alien to me. Theists, in my eyes, were no different then alien abductees or Trekkies.

Till this day, a part of my brain can simply not accept or understand that people can believe this stuff and think like this. I have a really hard time empathizing with it.

I have better understanding of psychology and stuff now that I'm older and know a bit more about cultures etc... But still... It's very hard for me to "get".

 

[HitchSlap]

I never was a theist. I had a secular education and religion was a non-issue. The first time I picked up a bible, I was 16 or 17. And the only reason I picked it up was because I switched schools. From a state school to a catholic one. I got expelled from the religious class after a couple of months for the rest of the year, because I argued to much LOL.

It just amazed me. It was such obvious nonsense in my eyes. That whole world was completely alien to me. Theists, in my eyes, were no different then alien abductees or Trekkies.

Till this day, a part of my brain can simply not accept or understand that people can believe this stuff and think like this. I have a really hard time empathizing with it.

I have better understanding of psychology and stuff now that I'm older and know a bit more about cultures etc... But still... It's very hard for me to "get".

This is exactly why religion need to get to the kids first and brain wash 'em before they know what hit them, the "faith like a child" canard.

 

[EternalDragon]

Exactly. I'm not sure which position is worse, though. Telling science to take a hike and ignore the whole of reality, or accept reality and try to stuff it into your religious beliefs.

You mean trying to stuff reality into your naturalistic beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

You mean trying to stuff reality into your naturalistic beliefs.

When you have evidence and theories that work, no stuffing required.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean trying to stuff reality into your naturalistic beliefs.

I'm not a naturalistic atheist, actually.