Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

At one time yes.

That doesn't make any sense.
How could they discover an unfalsifiable and unverifiable particle?
How could they know what to look for?

It seems you don't understand what "unfalsifiable" and "unverifiable" means.

Which matter?

I don't know, you didn't mention it. You just said that I was on one side and the scientific consensus on the other.

You never said on which matter - which is why I ask.

What standard are you referring to?

Clearly, you think the EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICISTS are worth believing, because they are EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICISTS.

I'm just asking if you feel the same about EDUCATED EXPERIENCED BIOLOGISTS

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown anything.

You made a statement that had an assumed conclusion.

That is an out and out lie. I have included link after link to show fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't make any sense.
How could they discover an unfalsifiable and unverifiable particle?
How could they know what to look for?

At the time it was unfalsifiable without the means to falsify it. The particle was unverifiable without the means to find it.

It seems you don't understand what "unfalsifiable" and "unverifiable" means.

OF course, it is always someone else who doesn't understand common English words.

I don't know, you didn't mention it. You just said that I was on one side and the scientific consensus on the other.

You never said on which matter - which is why I ask.

How would I know you asked the question.

Clearly, you think the EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICISTS are worth believing, because they are EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICISTS.

No, I think they are worth believing because they have data that corroborates their position, they are educated and experienced in the field and have had peer reviews of agreement.

I'm just asking if you feel the same about EDUCATED EXPERIENCED BIOLOGISTS

Yes. If any scientist can put forth the evidence to show their positions I feel the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

At the time it was unfalsifiable without the means to falsify it.

The standard model did make specific predictions about what should be observed at certain energies, so it was falsifiable. They just had to wait to build the experiment to test it.

The particle was unverifiable without the means to find it.

The ability to predict the outcome of experiments made it verifiable.

OF course, it is always someone else who doesn't understand common English words.

Irony at its greatest.

No, I think they are worth believing because they have data that corroborates their position, they are educated and experienced in the field and have had peer reviews of agreement.

Their position is not the same as yours. None of them are claiming that God created the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is an out and out lie. I have included link after link to show fine tuning.

Could a universe be incapable of supporting life and still be fine tuned?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not sure what you mean by Christian dark ages but Newton and other spurred by their religious beliefs were instrumental to our modern methodology.

What step in the scientific method requires the incorporation of God's actions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The standard model did make specific predictions about what should be observed at certain energies, so it was falsifiable. They just had to wait to build the experiment to test it.



The ability to predict the outcome of experiments made it verifiable.

All the predictions in the world without being able to observe it makes it just a prediction without a way to test it. That was the point. The ability to predict the outcome of experiments does not verify without a way to verify.

Irony at its greatest.

Just your opinion.

Their position is not the same as yours. None of them are claiming that God created the universe.

I didn't make that claim. I have repeated the claim yet you continue to ignore it. My claim is that the fine tuning of the universe appears to be designed. That appearance supports that the universe is possibly designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What step in the scientific method requires the incorporation of God's actions?

I didn't claim it incorporated God's actions? Straw man.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could a universe be incapable of supporting life and still be fine tuned?

You are misusing the fine tuning argument. The premise is that the values the universe holds are precisely what are required for life to exist. Without a consequence for fine tuning it would be a non-issue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is an out and out lie. I have included link after link to show fine tuning.

Repeating a statement with an assumed conclusion is still a statement with an assumed conclusion, once....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't claim it incorporated God's actions? Straw man.

Every time you claim tuning, you imply a tuner. We all know who you mean with that...

 

[DogmaHunter]

All the predictions in the world without being able to observe it makes it just a prediction without a way to test it. That was the point. The ability to predict the outcome of experiments does not verify without a way to verify.

That's not what falsifiability / verifiability means in context of scientific models, once.

A scientific model needs to be testable / falsifiable in order to be a valid scientific model. And that does not mean that the test must be able to be conducted in this moment.

If you have a testable model, but conducting the test costs 5 billion dollars and you only have 3 dollars, then your model doesn't magically become "untestable". It still IS testable. It makes predictions that can be checked. You might not have the resources or the technology required to set up the experiment, but an experiment can be set up.

An unfalsifiable / untestable model is a model that can never be tested. No matter what technology or resources you have at your disposal.

For example, consider the claim that there is an undetectable dragon standing next to you. That can never be tested. Not with all the money in the world, not with any technology that exists or that will ever exist. Because the dragon is defined as being undetectable. That's an unfalsifiable, untestable model.

Do you understand now? I can't explain it any simpler....

I didn't make that claim. I have repeated the claim yet you continue to ignore it. My claim is that the fine tuning of the universe appears to be designed.

I seem to remember you saying that your claim is that the universe appears to be fine tuned. Now, you seem to be hinting that it is already an established fact that it is "fine tuned" and that that fact gives it the appearance of design.

So, what's that about?
Which is it?

That appearance supports that the universe is possibly designed.

It also support the possibility that it is not designed and simply appears to be so. So what is your point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are misusing the fine tuning argument. The premise is that the values the universe holds are precisely what are required for life to exist.

Once again I feel compelled to ask: what did you expect? That the values were such that life would be impossible?

 

[Dizredux]

From Berkeley. edu Science works with testable ideas

For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true.

A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway

To be scientific an hypothesis must be testable at least in theory. It does not have to testable right now but it must have the capability of being so at some time. If it is not testable then it is not science. It may be interesting and may be discussed by scientists but it is not science. It is that simple.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Every time you claim tuning, you imply a tuner. We all know who you mean with that...

That is simply false. Every time a scientist is claiming fine tuning do you think they are claiming a tuner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

From Berkeley. edu Science works with testable ideas





To be scientific an hypothesis must be testable at least in theory. It does not have to testable right now but it must have the capability of being so at some time. If it is not testable then it is not science. It may be interesting and may be discussed by scientists but it is not science. It is that simple.

Dizredux

So?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once again I feel compelled to ask: what did you expect? That the values were such that life would be impossible?

That is a good question. What makes it possible? IF the universe is such that makes life highly improbable according to such highly refined requirements but it has met those highly refined requirements what made that possible?

That life is possible is not a given. That life exists in our universe is not just a brute fact that we take as something that just happened by chance when the features of the universe have too many elements to have occurred by chance alone.

 

[lasthero]

Every time a scientist is claiming fine tuning do you think they are claiming a tuner?

But they're not claiming fine tuning. They're claiming the appearance of fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Repeating a statement with an assumed conclusion is still a statement with an assumed conclusion, once....

What does that even mean? I have linked the scientific verification on fine tuning from the scientist in the field.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not always.

The scientific community doesn't take that sort of behavior well. The no tolerance policy is because such infractions upon the scientific method can put an enormous amount of data into question, or worse place doubt into the validity of the whole community. This is why fakes result in instant shaming and essentially banning from having a legitimate career in a scientific field again.