Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Loudmouth]

Your misunderstanding is that you don't recognize that the fine tuning is a real phenomena just like atoms and quarks.

Since you can't present evidence demonstrating the existence of a fine tuner, why should I have to disprove a fine tuner?

If Davies, Barnes, Tipler and many many others saw this they would think you very inept in understanding the problem.

What evidence did Davies, Barnes, and Tipler present for the existence of a fine tuner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Plays the victim card. Typical.

Victim? I am no victim. The fact that mockery is the only tool available has nothing to do with me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you can't present evidence demonstrating the existence of a fine tuner, why should I have to disprove a fine tuner?



What evidence did Davies, Barnes, and Tipler present for the existence of a fine tuner?

I am going to correct that mockery is the only possible tool...so is a straw man argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No fine tuner, no fine tuning.

Denial of a scientific term is no better.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am going to correct that mockery is the only possible tool...so is a straw man argument.

No fine tuner, no fine tuning.

 

[Loudmouth]

Denial of a scientific term is no better.

Twisting of a scientific term is the worst, which is exactly what you do.

 

[bhsmte]

Multiple years of strengthening the defense mechanisms and this is what you get.

Back to square one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No fine tuner, no fine tuning.

Denial of a scientific term is no better.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Multiple years of strengthening the defense mechanisms and this is what you get.

Back to square one.

I'm sorry, but you can break free of them if you try hard. I have hope for you yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

Denial of a scientific term is no better.

Twisting of a scientific term is the worst.

Your whole argument is that a universe capable of supporting life could not occur by chance. Therefore, it requires a fine tuner. That is the fine tuning argument that you are using. Simply showing that the universe is capable of supporting life is not fine tuning.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry, but you can break free of them if you try hard. I have hope for you yet.

When you have actual evidence for a fine tuner, let us know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When you have actual evidence for a fine tuner, let us know.

Straw man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Straw man.

The fine tuning argument does not posit that there is a fine tuner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Twisting of a scientific term is the worst, which is exactly what you do.

False. The term is a scientific term used by those in the field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fine tuning argument does not posit that there is a fine tuner?

Never made that claim. Straw man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Never made that claim. Straw man.

Then no fine tuning.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. The term is a scientific term used by those in the field.

Where do people in that field use a fine tuner in their theories?

 

[Loudmouth]

Another poster, JimFit, was kind enough to spell out the fine tuning argument for us.

"
Here it is

The fine-tuning argument
The argument goes like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design

"

 

[PsychoSarah]

Never made that claim. Straw man.

Then the position you are arguing for isn't related to ID or anything theistic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then the position you are arguing for isn't related to ID or anything theistic.

The position I am arguing for is that the fine tuning in the universe is claimed by scientists to appear as if it was designed. The fine tuning is evidence, the claim is that it appears to be designed. My subjective opinion based on this evidence and the appearance of design is that design is possible as the cause of the appearance and the evidence of the fine tuning.