Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[lasthero]

Not always.

When has a scientist ever expected his ideas to be accepted without evidence?

Also, Once, a question - why does God need to fine-tune the universe in order to create life?

 

[Oncedeceived]

When has a scientist ever expected his ideas to be accepted without evidence?

Accepted as fact or as a possibility. There was no evidence for the Higgs Boson and it took a long long time for any evidence to support it existed. Yet the scientist involved worked on finding it. That is true of other theories as well. The string theory, the inflation theory and so forth.

Also, Once, a question - why does God need to fine-tune the universe in order to create life?

In Christian theology the Bible is the source of information for God and in that theology God made that information available through people He chose to relay it. In that, we find that God wanted the universe to point to Him. In the Bible it says that God says we can see the work of hands in the universe.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

 

[HitchSlap]

In Christian theology the Bible is the source of information for God and in that theology God made that information available through people He chose to relay it. In that, we find that God wanted the universe to point to Him. In the Bible it says that God says we can see the work of hands in the universe.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Bit of an egotist, eh.

"Look at me, look what I did..."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bit of an egotist, eh.

"Look at me, look what I did..."

No, it is more like...Know that I am God. See the evidence for my existence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you argue against a belief system and set your arguments in that regard you are using your bias against that belief. It does work that way.

False.

Before I can argue against a tuner, someone first needs to argue for a tuner.


Nobody starts to argue against an idea before someone suggests the idea in the first place.

See how that really works?

When did Newton ever argue against no graviton fairies?

He never did, because nobody ever suggested graviton fairies

See the problem?

Yes. But it's not what you think it is.

Why argue against something that doesn't exist?

To try and talk sense into those that think it does exist

He would never have had argued for something that is not believed to exist.

Exactly. "believe". Good choice of words. Your a priori belief suggests (requires, actually) a "tuner", not the data.

Now... do YOU see the problem?




I'm skipping the rest of the giant post. I went overboard myself and having scanned through it, it's just the same old nonsense anyway. I'll read it properly and if there is something worthy of extra response I'll do so, but .... you know, there probably isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am claiming that the appearance of design supports possible actual design.

The appearance of design also supports possible illusion of design, so what is your point? How is this helpful?

If something appears to be designed which means that something has the appearance of a planned intent by an agent for a purpose

Please mention, and be specific, what exactly has the appearance of "planned intent by an agent" and "purpose".

Next, explain how that data has that appearance. In what way.

it seems logical and reasonable to posit that there is possibly actual design as a cause.

It also seems logical and reasonable to posit that there is possible a natural mechanism that brings about this illusion of design.

In fact, that is quite more probable as well, since we have examples of natural mechanisms doing exactly that and we know of exactly zero "agents" who could design such things.

I'm again left wondering what your point and goal really is. Well, besides some kind of proselytizing, perhaps. Or just trying to rationalize your religious beliefs?

 

[selfinflikted]

No, it is more like...Know that I am God. See the evidence for my existence.

Then he went about that all wrong as is evidenced by this debate. Maybe just showing up from time to time for a cup of tea would've been a bit more definitive.

 

[Oncedeceived]

False.

Before I can argue against a tuner, someone first needs to argue for a tuner.

Nope not even. I find that for a scientist to come out against a tuner makes his/her position become subjective and biased rather than scientific. It doesn't ride on evidence but on a lack of evidence which is not objective.

Nobody starts to argue against an idea before someone suggests the idea in the first place.

See how that really works?

IF the argument holds no validity there would be no need to argue against it, now would there be?

He never did, because nobody ever suggested graviton fairies

Yet:
Newton was a serious student of the Scriptures. But we are only now learning just how serious. The Newton Project has published, for the first time, a 300,000-word interpretation of the book of Revelation that Newton wrote in the late seventeenth century. In reporting on the released writings, Nature writer Geoff Brumfiel noted: “Newton’s religious writings constitute more than half of his entire written work” (2004, 430:819). Brumfiel continued:

In the past, many thought that Newton pursued religion only in his spare time, or that the majority of his religious work had been copied from others. But Iliffe [Robert Iliffe, a science historian at Imperial College in London—[SIZE=-1]BH[/SIZE]] claims that these writings show his theological work was carefully planned and often related to his work in mathematics and physics…. Ultimately, Newton’s religion and science may have been tied together by belief in absolute truth. Newton used testable hypotheses to find truth in nature, and believed that his religious writings revealed the truth about God, says Iliffe (p. 819).
​

Many in science believe that Newton single-handedly contributed more to the development of science than any other individual in history. Yet, that same brilliant mind also held a firm belief in God—so much so, that “religious writings constitute more than half of his entire written work.” This scientist, who was determined to find “absolute truth,” not only believed in the existence of God, but went on to write a commentary on the New Testament book of Revelation. How ironic is it that one of the leading “father’s of science” was a believer in God, and today, that field is doing all it can to eradicate any acknowledgment of that God!
Apologetics Press - Isaac Newton?Religious Works Finally Published

Yes. But it's not what you think it is.

I disagree.

To try and talk sense into those that think it does exist

What fine tuning? Design? Why?

Exactly. "believe". Good choice of words. Your a priori belief suggests (requires, actually) a "tuner", not the data.

I have split what is evidence and what is belief. You do not do that.

Now... do YOU see the problem?

Always did.

I'm skipping the rest of the giant post. I went overboard myself and having scanned through it, it's just the same old nonsense anyway. I'll read it properly and if there is something worthy of extra response I'll do so, but .... you know, there probably isn't.

Right, you can only say "I don't believe it" so many times in so many ways.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Never made that claim. Straw man.

You make that claim (that there is a tuner) every time that you claim that the universe is tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then he went about that all wrong as is evidenced by this debate. Maybe just showing up from time to time for a cup of tea would've been a bit more definitive.

The evidence is what it is. Denying what is agreed to by a consensus of scientists in the field is really not saying anything about the actual evidence. What I conclude from the evidence is a different matter.

I think that the evidence supports the possibility of design, you and others may not but it must be understood that mine and their/yours are only beliefs and do not change the evidence. So we might disagree about the conclusions that evidence induces but we can't lose sight that we make those subjectively while the fine tuning evidence is objective.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Premise? That is yet another unfounded assertion.

Wanting to know how God did it has provided the needed emphasis to know for hundreds of years.

Name a single process that has God doing anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Your continual efforts at running away from your own assertions are what draws mockery.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Premise? That is yet another unfounded assertion.



Name a single process that has God doing anything.

So you are now denying that Modern Science was not founded in Judeo-Christian culture by those who held to those religions?

 

[Loudmouth]

When all scientists in the field are faced with the fine tuning problem they are going to do what they have to do.

What is the fine tuning problem, in your own words?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are now denying that Modern Science was not founded in Judeo-Christian culture by those who held to those religions?

I am denying that "The premise that God provided us with intelligence and the comprehension to understand the universe" has anything to do with doing science. You also provided zero evidence that God has done anything. You can't name a single theory where God is a part of any process.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your continual efforts at running away from your own assertions are what draws mockery.

My actual assertions or your straw man of them?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope not even. I find that for a scientist to come out against a tuner makes his/her position become subjective and biased rather than scientific. It doesn't ride on evidence but on a lack of evidence which is not objective.

How is that a response to what I said?

IF the argument holds no validity there would be no need to argue against it, now would there be?

We are arguing about it. There is no argument going on in scientific circles. Those working in the field are simply trying to answer questions through research, observation, experimentation, analysis, etc. And no "tuner" is showing up anywhere.

Yet:
Newton was a serious student of the Scriptures. But we are only now learning just how serious. The Newton Project has published, for the first time, a 300,000-word interpretation of the book of Revelation that Newton wrote in the late seventeenth century. In reporting on the released writings, Nature writer Geoff Brumfiel noted: “Newton’s religious writings constitute more than half of his entire written work” (2004, 430:819). Brumfiel continued:

In the past, many thought that Newton pursued religion only in his spare time, or that the majority of his religious work had been copied from others. But Iliffe [Robert Iliffe, a science historian at Imperial College in London—[SIZE=-1]BH[/SIZE]] claims that these writings show his theological work was carefully planned and often related to his work in mathematics and physics…. Ultimately, Newton’s religion and science may have been tied together by belief in absolute truth. Newton used testable hypotheses to find truth in nature, and believed that his religious writings revealed the truth about God, says Iliffe (p. 819).
​

Many in science believe that Newton single-handedly contributed more to the development of science than any other individual in history. Yet, that same brilliant mind also held a firm belief in God—so much so, that “religious writings constitute more than half of his entire written work.” This scientist, who was determined to find “absolute truth,” not only believed in the existence of God, but went on to write a commentary on the New Testament book of Revelation. How ironic is it that one of the leading “father’s of science” was a believer in God, and today, that field is doing all it can to eradicate any acknowledgment of that God!
Apologetics Press - Isaac Newton?Religious Works Finally Published

It's cute how you think I didn't know how religious the dude was.

But nice attempt at derailing and avoiding to address the issue.

I have split what is evidence and what is belief. You do not do that.

I don't believe anything without evidence. I have nothing to split.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is what it is. Denying what is agreed to by a consensus of scientists in the field is really not saying anything about the actual evidence.

Not a single scientist states that a deity fine tuned anything.

I think that the evidence supports the possibility of design, you and others may not but it must be understood that mine and their/yours are only beliefs and do not change the evidence. So we might disagree about the conclusions that evidence induces but we can't lose sight that we make those subjectively while the fine tuning evidence is objective.

Your beliefs don't mean anything. "Possibilities" are meaningless.

Every time we ask for evidence for design, you pipe in with the fine tuning argument and the Kalaam cosmological argument. If you didn't think those were pieces of evidence, why do you keep bringing them up? Do you keep missing the part where we ask for EVIDENCE?

 

[Loudmouth]

My actual assertions or your straw man of them?

Your actual assertions. Are you saying that you don't believe that God created the universe?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fine tuning is evidence, the claim is that it appears to be designed

That's hilarious.


First, how things "appear" is subjective and personal. What "appears" designed to you might not appear so to me.

Secondly, "fine tuned" is a claim about data or an object.
And that claim is like pandora's box, because it includes claims about a tuner, about planning, about intent, about purpose, about agency,....

How can you not get this.