Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

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

"

I've seen that argument, it is not mine however.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

That doesn't make for anything conclusive. No one is stating fine tuning is impossible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here are some links that show the real phenomena of fine tuning.

[1105.4278] Is the Multiverse Hypothesis capable of explaining the Fine Tuning of Nature Laws and Constants? The Case of Cellular Automata
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/fine_tuning.pdf
Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Quanta Magazine

 

[Loudmouth]

I've seen that argument, it is not mine however.

No fine tuner, no fine tuning.

If all you can do is repeat the tautology "life exists in the universe because life can exist in the universe" then you really don't have a point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here are some links that show the real phenomena of fine tuning.

[1105.4278] Is the Multiverse Hypothesis capable of explaining the Fine Tuning of Nature Laws and Constants? The Case of Cellular Automata
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/fine_tuning.pdf
Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Quanta Magazine

Those links do not show a deity fine tuning anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't make for anything conclusive. No one is stating fine tuning is impossible.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those links do not show a deity fine tuning anything.

Don't get to close to a fire with all that straw Loudmouth.

 

[Davian]

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

Your position is unfalsifiable. You have nothing to be refuted. Why do you feel that your unevidenced and unfalsifiable assertions should be exempt from mockery?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No fine tuner, no fine tuning.

If all you can do is repeat the tautology "life exists in the universe because life can exist in the universe" then you really don't have a point.

If Science just rested on "life exists in the universe because life can exist in the universe" we would be in sorry shape, don't you agree?

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't get to close to a fire with all that straw Loudmouth.

I already showed that it isn't a strawman. The fine tuning argument, as described by someone pushing ID/Creationism:

The fine-tuning argument
The argument goes like this:

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

 

[Loudmouth]

If Science just rested on "life exists in the universe because life can exist in the universe" we would be in sorry shape, don't you agree?

And yet, that is where you want science to rest. You want to claim, "science doesn't know, therefore God did it".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your position is unfalsifiable. You have nothing to be refuted. Why do you feel that your unevidenced and unfalsifiable assertions should be exempt from mockery?

Do scientists get mockery from their own assertions that have no evidence and are unfalsifiable? No, they are not. The multiverse assertian is entertained in the scientific arena. So what you really mean is that my design assertions are reason for mockery. But that is just based on your own biased assertions that exempts design as a cause.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet, that is where you want science to rest. You want to claim, "science doesn't know, therefore God did it".

Not at all. The premise that God provided us with intelligence and the comprehension to understand the universe has provided a perfect model for Science and has pushed knowledge of the universe in a multitude of ways. Wanting to know how God did it has provided the needed emphasis to know for hundreds of years.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do scientists get mockery from their own assertions that have no evidence and are unfalsifiable? .

Depends on how hard they try to push the ideas; careers have been lost over stuff like that

 

[Oncedeceived]

Depends on how hard they try to push the ideas; careers have been lost over stuff like that

When all scientists in the field are faced with the fine tuning problem they are going to do what they have to do. Great science has come from things that were not observed or falsifiable at the time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

When all scientists in the field are faced with the fine tuning problem they are going to do what they have to do. Great science has come from things that were not observed or falsifiable at the time.

And lost careers would still result in trying to get those ideas accepted without evidence.

 

[lasthero]

When all scientists in the field are faced with the fine tuning problem they are going to do what they have to do. Great science has come from things that were not observed or falsifiable at the time.

Such as?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Such as?

Recently the Higgs Boson.

 

[bhsmte]

And lost careers would still result in trying to get those ideas accepted without evidence.

That never goes over all too well, especially with scientists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And lost careers would still result in trying to get those ideas accepted without evidence.

Not always.