Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

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

If they make such assertions: yes.

The multiverse assertian is entertained in the scientific arena.

That's a hypothesis, not an assertion.

So what you really mean is that my design assertions are reason for mockery.

Yes. Ridiculous assertions have a high probability of being responded to with ridicule.

But that is just based on your own biased assertions that exempts design as a cause.

No, once. Not agreeing with an assertion does not mean that one automatically agrees with the opposite assertion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

That is simply not the case. Science arose from a Biblical foundation and still rests on those premises today.

1. Nature is real.
2. Nature is a thing and not a God.
3. Nature is worth studying.
4. Nature is unified and orderly.
5. The natural order is mathematically precise.
6. The human minds and discover and understand the natural world.

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.

False:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]The work of astronomer J. Kepler illustrates this beautifully, because he struggled for years over the small difference of eight minutes between the observed orbit-time of Mars, compared to what the calculated time should have been if the orbit were circular in shape. This "small" discrepancy drove Kepler to postulate that the orbit was elliptical instead of round. He hit upon this because of a conviction that God's work in designing nature must be mathmatically precise and logical --otherwise Kepler would not have worried about it, and would not have decided against a two thousand year-old belief in circular orbits. Kepler spoke of those eight minutes gratefully, as a "gift of God." [/FONT]

 

[Loudmouth]

That is simply not the case.

Then show me a theory that requires God giving us anything. Show me a step in the scientific method that requires the existence of God.

Science arose from a Biblical foundation and still rests on those premises today.

Prove it.

1. Nature is real.
2. Nature is a thing and not a God.
3. Nature is worth studying.
4. Nature is unified and orderly.
5. The natural order is mathematically precise.
6. The human minds and discover and understand the natural world.

None of those require a Bible or a belief in God. You might as well claim that the rules of tennis require God because it was founding in a country that was predominately christian.

False:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]The work of astronomer J. Kepler illustrates this beautifully, because he struggled for years over the small difference of eight minutes between the observed orbit-time of Mars, compared to what the calculated time should have been if the orbit were circular in shape. This "small" discrepancy drove Kepler to postulate that the orbit was elliptical instead of round. He hit upon this because of a conviction that God's work in designing nature must be mathmatically precise and logical --otherwise Kepler would not have worried about it, and would not have decided against a two thousand year-old belief in circular orbits. Kepler spoke of those eight minutes gratefully, as a "gift of God." [/FONT]

Where is God found in the operation of gravity?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

The fine tuning problem is determining why the universe has values that are exceptionally precise and required to allow for the existence of the universe and life therein.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

This is seriously dishonest of you.

The Higgs Boson, was NOT an unfalsifiable or unverifiable thing. It never was. The technology at the time perhaps didn't allow for it, but the model was very testable in principle.

Also, the Higgs Boson was NOT accepted as fact at all. It was (and still is) a theoretical idea that had some stuff going for it. And even as we speak, I'm actually not sure that the community of physics at this point has accepted what they found at the LHC as actually being the Higgs Boson... the media have a habbit of screaming victory before proper verification etc. Remember how they screamed when "relativity was disproven"?

Your fine-tuning nonsense however is not verifiable or falsifiable, not even in principle.

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.

Sounds like a priori beliefs to me that require you to believe that the universe is designed and that it was tuned by some tuning deity.

How surprising.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fine tuning problem is determining why the universe has values that are exceptionally precise and required to allow for the existence of the universe and life therein.

How could a universe have values that are not precise? If a universe did not have life could we also call it fine tuned?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fine tuning problem is determining why the universe has values that are exceptionally precise and required to allow for the existence of the universe and life therein.

That's the most hilarious thing you ever wrote on this subject

You're trying to spoonfeed the answer IN the question.

So, the actual question is: why the universe has values that are exceptionally precise and required to allow for the existence of the universe and life therein

And your answer is "it's fine tuned!".



Exactly as I've been saying for i-dunno-how-many-posts: you assume the answer BEFORE you ask the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then show me a theory that requires God giving us anything. Show me a step in the scientific method that requires the existence of God.

You many not agree but before Modern Science and those beliefs built upon Judeo Christian beliefs those ideas were not used in Science.

Prove it.

The Christian Foundation of Modern Science

None of those require a Bible or a belief in God. You might as well claim that the rules of tennis require God because it was founding in a country that was predominately christian.

Non-religious biases.

Where is God found in the operation of gravity?

What is gravity? How does gravity work? Why does gravity only pull?
Why is gravity weaker than any other force of nature? Why is gravity fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the most hilarious thing you ever wrote on this subject

You're trying to spoonfeed the answer IN the question.

So, the actual question is: why the universe has values that are exceptionally precise and required to allow for the existence of the universe and life therein

And your answer is "it's fine tuned!".



Exactly as I've been saying for i-dunno-how-many-posts: you assume the answer BEFORE you ask the question.

What is hilarious is that this is not my claim!!!!!!!!!!! You are claiming that the scientists are assuming fine tuning before asking the question. That is ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is gravity fine tuned.

Why do you hit your children?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is hilarious is that this is not my claim!!!!!!!!!!! You are claiming that the scientists are assuming fine tuning before asking the question. That is ridiculous.

It indeed is ridiculous, if that is what they claim.

So, you agree then, that assuming fine-tuning is an invalid and unjustified assumption?

 

[Loudmouth]

You many not agree but before Modern Science and those beliefs built upon Judeo Christian beliefs those ideas were not used in Science.

Which of them require God?

The Christian Foundation of Modern Science

So show us.

Non-religious biases.

Then show me which ones require God to be real?

What is gravity? How does gravity work? Why does gravity only pull?
Why is gravity weaker than any other force of nature? Why is gravity fine tuned.

Where did fine tuned come from?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is seriously dishonest of you.

The Higgs Boson, was NOT an unfalsifiable or unverifiable thing. It never was. The technology at the time perhaps didn't allow for it, but the model was very testable in principle.

Also, the Higgs Boson was NOT accepted as fact at all. It was (and still is) a theoretical idea that had some stuff going for it. And even as we speak, I'm actually not sure that the community of physics at this point has accepted what they found at the LHC as actually being the Higgs Boson... the media have a habbit of screaming victory before proper verification etc. Remember how they screamed when "relativity was disproven"?

Your fine-tuning nonsense however is not verifiable or falsifiable, not even in principle.



Sounds like a priori beliefs to me that require you to believe that the universe is designed and that it was tuned by some tuning deity.

How surprising.

Ok so on this side DogmaHunter <== on the other side Educated, Experience Astrophysicists and others in the field <===== what to chose to believe...what to chose to believe.... I chose EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICISTS!!!!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which of them require God?




So show us.



Then show me which ones require God to be real?



Where did fine tuned come from?

State your argument. Is it that Modern Science was not founded on Judeo Christian culture and beliefs or we Can't show God is real?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It indeed is ridiculous, if that is what they claim.

So, you agree then, that assuming fine-tuning is an invalid and unjustified assumption?

I have shown that fine tuning is a scientific discovery. It is valid and justified.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok so on this side DogmaHunter <== on the other side Educated, Experience Astrophysicists and others in the field <===== what to chose to believe...what to chose to believe.... I chose EDUCATED EXPERIENCED ASTROPHYSICISTS!!!!

Evidence of this claim?

Are you telling me that the community accepted the Higgs Boson as a fact before its discovery (assuming they even accept it as fact today)?

Are you telling me that the Higgs Boson was an unfalsifiable and unverfiable concept? If you do, then how could they find it? How could they know what to look for?

Please point out exactly what it is I said that was at odds with scientific consensus on the matter?

Equally, do you also hold EDUCATED EXPERIENCED BIOLOGISTS and EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS to the same standard?

Just for my interest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

State your argument. Is it that Modern Science was not founded on Judeo Christian culture and beliefs or we Can't show God is real?

He's asking for a single scientific theory of hypothesis where "god" is a factor or variable of any kind on any level.

Also, are you aware of which cultural society kickstarted science as we know it before we emerged from the fundamentalist christian dark ages?

Here's a hint: they invented algebra, among many other things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence of this claim?

Are you telling me that the community accepted the Higgs Boson as a fact before its discovery (assuming they even accept it as fact today)?

Since when did Science claim to be facts?

Are you telling me that the Higgs Boson was an unfalsifiable and unverfiable concept? If you do, then how could they find it? How could they know what to look for?

At one time yes.

Please point out exactly what it is I said that was at odds with scientific consensus on the matter?

Which matter?

Equally, do you also hold EDUCATED EXPERIENCED BIOLOGISTS and EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS to the same standard?

What standard are you referring to?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have shown that fine tuning is a scientific discovery. It is valid and justified.

You haven't shown anything.

You made a statement that had an assumed conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He's asking for a single scientific theory of hypothesis where "god" is a factor or variable of any kind on any level.

I gave him one.

Also, are you aware of which cultural society kickstarted science as we know it before we emerged from the fundamentalist christian dark ages?

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.

Here's a hint: they invented algebra, among many other things.

The Greeks. However, if you will read my link you will understand the formation of the Scientific methodology of Modern Science.