We have been over this time and time again and the problem lies with you. Fine tuning is not a term I made up or is a religious one. Fine tuning is the scientific term used for the phenomena observed and tested for the values of the universe.
It's called a metaphor. Not a single respected scientist who says such things, means what you pretend they mean.
So you feel that astrophysicists/cosmologists/physicists are making invalid assertions?
Assuming they assert it the way you claim they do (fyi: they don't), then yes.
So you accept evolution theory as presented in mainstream biology?
You just won't except it as evidence. You demand evidence and then dismiss it when it is used to support the existence of God.
I have never received any valid evidence from anyone to support their deity of choice. Not from you, not from any other christian, not from any follower of any of the hundreds of mutually exclusive religions out there.
Yes, you are assuming that evolution is possible without any aid of God.
It's not an assumption.
There's nothing in the genome that couldn't be accomplished through the simple processes of mutation and selection.
There are plenty of incidences where evolution is silent on how something arose.
Funny appeal to ignorance.
In any case, the historical steps taken to get to trait X from trait Y are not the same thing as the underlying mechanism that makes it possible from X to evolve into Y. We're talking about the mechanism here, not the actual genetic path that was taken nore about the environmental factors that formed the path to X.
Gravity is another example. How do you know that gravity is possible without God? What evidence provides that information?
I don't waste my time pondering such negative questions.
I can come up with an infinite amount of such questions.
How do you know we aren't living in the matrix?
How do you know that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories, wasn't created 5 minutes ago?
How do you know that pink unicorns in the core of the earth aren't what makes the earth rotate?
How do you know graviton fairies aren't responsible for gravity?
How do you know that electrons aren't really microscopic leprechauns?
How do you know that centaurs aren't living on a rock in the Ort cloud?
No evidence can provide the
absence of things. You can only provide evidence of the
presence of things.
It's a juvenile attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
I'll ponder any of the above questions, including yours, the moment there is actual valid reason to do so and not a second sooner.
There are too many unknowns about ToE in the past and we can't see macroevolution in the present to determine God is not needed in anyway.
Educated, experienced and practicing evolutionary biologists and geneticists disagree. Funny how you only value what such experts say when you feel you can make a point about your a priori religious beliefs.
You make that assumption due to your worldview rather than any evidence against it.
I don't need evidence against
your claims. It's your job to support your own claims. I can only evaluate the evidence that you present
in support of your claims. Shifting the burden, again.
If you wish to include gods in a process, you better be able to support and defend your case. If you can't do that, why would I consider your god ideas?
Because there's nothing in genetics to be found that can't be accomplished by natural processes like mutation and selection.
Next to that, the nested hierarchies found in genetics are exactly what we would expect them to be if evolution occured.
Yes, in theory an entity could have manipulated evolutionary processes (like for example triggering certain specific mutations) and we would have no way to find that out if our collective genomes are all we have.
So, if you wish to suggest that an entity manipulated evolutionary processes, you're gonna have to support that. Can you?
The point in this entire discussion is that exact thing. It is more cohesive and the evidence supports that the fine tuning of the universe points to design. That is taking on that burden of proof
No. That's just making an assertion and expecting to get away with it.
which you dismiss out of hand
because it's just an assertion.
by either denying that fine tuning exists, or that the result of that fine tuning appears designed even to those who do not believe a God exists.
I don't agree the universe appears designed.
Oh yes, it is. Modern science began as an exercise in determining how God worked in the universe based on the metaphysical aspects of an orderly and lawful universe able to be comprehended by intelligent beings. It was only later that the scientific arena began to be a naturalistic endeavor devoid of God.
Yes. Because after centuries of investigation and study, everything that was once attributed to gods and the supernatural turned out to have natural explanations.
And gods and the supernatural were (and are) nowhere to be found.
Geology as a field was born when people set out to prove that the world was indeed completely flooded as in the Noah story. With every new discovery, it became clearer that sticking to the flood story was very problematic. In the end, geology was born and supernatural floods were discarded as nonsense.
This wasn't a conspiracy plot by geologists to "rebel against god" or whatever. This was simply the result of their research.
The same happened in physics, biology, etc.
Throughout all this time, till today, god has been used to plug the unkowns. Just like you are trying to do here. Today, god is pushed so far back that you guys have only amunition left in the origin of life and the origin of the universe. And those will be solved as well eventually. And I'll bet you that we won't have gods or supernatural shenannigans in those answers either.
And I wonder what you will rant about then.
I bet that suddenly, you won't be caring that much anymore about the claims of "experience, well-educated and practicing" astro-physicists. Just like you don't care today about what mainstream biologists have to say about evolution.
That is simply false. It is due to the fact that God created an orderly universe with laws and processes that could be understood.
Evidence for this claim?
Science rests on that premise.
No once, science doesn't assume that god created the universe. Good grief...
IF it were not for the fact that the universe is created in such a way that makes science possible.
I'm guessing you mean that science is possible because the universe is consistent. ie, gravity won't stop working tomorrow.
No poo, Sherlock. I fail to see what your deity of choice has to do with that. Except, off course, for your requirement of believing that due to your a priori faith-based beliefs.
Genesis is another topic for another time.
Why? To devastating to your nonsense claims?
Everyone on earth tries to reconcile their beliefs. That is what we do, we search for truth.
You don't search for truth. You search for things that you feel confirms your a priori beliefs. Those are 2 very different things.
Science is an approximation of truth, it is a system of checks and balances that provides error correction to findings in nature. It progresses knowledge about the world we life in. It finds "truth" and then corrects that truth to another truth when new information is accessed. How can a system that you claim is 99% of all ideas in science are wrong. When do you know that you are into truth? I agree it is a great system that progresses us forward ever forward and tells us a great deal but truth is not necessarily what it tells us in an absolute manner.
You seem to have missed the part where I asked you to provide me with a better alternative. What method do you propose to get to "absolutes"? And explain how that method works.
Historical truth. There is no way to show scientifically that John Kennedy was the youngest man elected for president.
It's called
historical science
Logical truth. If we were to say "Science is the only way to really know truth" we would refuting that statement by logic as there is no way to scientifically test that statement. Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
Logic is based on empirical reality. Science.
Before relativity, it wasn't "logical" that time relatively slows down as speed goes up.
Before quantum mechanics, it wasn't "logical" that something can be in two places at once.
Moral truth. Science can't tell us rape is evil.
False again.
Science informs us about the consequences of your actions. Without science, you wouldn't even be able to evaluate if an action is good or evil.
Experimental truth. Science can't tell whether or not my husband loves me.
False again. You use principles of science to determine that your husband loves you. You use data, past experiences and observations of his behaviour and how he treats you. All that informs your conclusion.
And, off course, through psychological science, we can OFF COURSE determine how attached a person is to another person or even object.
Even in neurological science, we can today put your brain under a scanner and show you pictures of people. We can then conclude how you feel about those people purely by looking how your brain responds.
Existential truth. It can not prove that we are not just a brain in a jar. It can't prove we are not experiencing Last Thursday-ism.
At last, you got one right.
But not for the reason that you think you did.
Notice the bold worlds. Proving negatives much?
Ok. That works with the natural world.
Is there another world?
Please point it out with evidence?
Why would you be shocked? You yourself said that Science progresses.
I would be shocked because of how solid this theory is. I would be equally shocked if it turns out that the earth doesn't orbit the sun after all...
But I'll accept the evidence and the implications.
So tell me how that is a genetic fact considering lateral and horizontal gene transfer, not to mention Epigenetics.
Just like it's a fact that we can pick your biological father from 1000s of random and anonymous DNA samples (assuming your bio father is one of those samples).