Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[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.

Exactly what I said. Yet, it was not falsifiable until that was built. Yet, we find that the Multiverse is being hypothesized and it is not objectively able to be tested at all. It is being considered by some a valid scientific theory.

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

So what of the multiverse?

Irony at its greatest.

Opinion at best.



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

Straw man.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Which is exactly my point.

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.

Which is exactly what I said.

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

Like the multi-verse.

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.

True. Are you saying though that nothing can be known except through scientific methods?

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

I didn't misunderstand to begin with.

I seem to remember you saying that your claim is that the universe appears to be fine tuned.

This is your problem. That is not what is claimed. It IS fine tuned. It is a real phenomena. The real fine tuning APPEARS DESIGNED. You continue to get confused on that. The fine tuning is the scientific term that scientists have used to define the phenomena of the values of the universe being to the exact measurement for life to exist. It APPEARS DESIGNED due to the fact that those values could have been different but they are exactly where they need to be for life to exist. It APPEARS as if they were planned with an intent of an agent for a purpose. Do you get it now?

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?

Do you understand now?

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

IF something appears as if it were a planned intent by an agent for a purpose it supports that it might be a planned intent by an agent for a purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

And thus starts the part of the discussion where you run away from your previous statements.

 

[Loudmouth]

All the predictions in the world without being able to observe it makes it just a prediction without a way to test it.

There was a way to test it. It was called "building the LHC".

That was the point. The ability to predict the outcome of experiments does not verify without a way to verify.

But it does make it verifiable.

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.

What makes it appear to be designed? Why do you always bring up fine tuning when people ask for evidence for God?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Is the term "fine tuning" limited to just life?

Without a consequence for fine tuning it would be a non-issue.

What is the consequence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly what I said. Yet, it was not falsifiable until that was built.

Since there were potential observations that would falsify the Higgs boson, then it was falsifiable.

Yet, we find that the Multiverse is being hypothesized and it is not objectively able to be tested at all. It is being considered by some a valid scientific theory.

I wouldn't consider it to be a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis in making, at best. They are still trying to figure out how to test it which means that it is in the early hypothesis stage of the scientific method.

God claims, on the other hand, compel us to not even consider hypotheses. We are told that God did it by some unknowable and mysterious means, therefore we might as well give up trying to understand it.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

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.

Once

So?

Because when you make statements like this it clearly indicates that you do not understand the idea of testability in science.

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

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

And thus starts the part of the discussion where you run away from your previous statements.

False.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There was a way to test it. It was called "building the LHC".

Yes. Prior to that there was no way to verify it, which was my point.

But it does make it verifiable.

Only when it can be done.

What makes it appear to be designed? Why do you always bring up fine tuning when people ask for evidence for God?

What makes it appear to be designed is that it appears since the values are so fine tuned to allow life that it looks as if it were an intent planned by an agent for a purpose.

UHHH, I don't. I say that it supports God's existence.

 

[Loudmouth]

True. Are you saying though that nothing can be known except through scientific methods?

Can you name a single piece of verified knowledge that includes the direct actions of God?

This is your problem. That is not what is claimed. It IS fine tuned. It is a real phenomena. The real fine tuning APPEARS DESIGNED.

Why does it appear designed, in your own words?

It APPEARS DESIGNED due to the fact that those values could have been different but they are exactly where they need to be for life to exist.

Then every lottery result would be fine tuned. Out of the possible 150 million possibilities, it always ends up at just the right number for the eventual winner to win. The same applies for a 52 card hand. When you deal out all 52 cards, the odds of that hand are extremely improbable, as in 1 in 10^67. The order of those cards could have been different, and yet they are exactly what they needed to be in order to produce that result. That is fine tuned as well.

It APPEARS as if they were planned with an intent of an agent for a purpose.

Only if you assume that life was the planned intent. That is the assumption that biases your entire argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

DizreduxOnce Because when you make statements like this it clearly indicates that you do not understand the idea of testability in science.
Dizredux

Really? what clearly indicates that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Prior to that there was no way to verify it, which was my point.

Do you understand the difference between unverified and unverifiable? Those aren't the same word, nor do they mean the same thing.

Only when it can be done.

False. If you can produce a set of potential observations that would falsify a hypothesis, then you have a verifiable hypothesis.

What makes it appear to be designed is that it appears since the values are so fine tuned to allow life that it looks as if it were an intent planned by an agent for a purpose.

Why does it give that appearance of intent?

UHHH, I don't. I say that it supports God's existence.

That means the same thing.

 

[Dizredux]

Really? what clearly indicates that?

Sometimes all I can do is shake my head and give up.


Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

Sometimes all I can do is shake my head and give up.


Dizredux

Don't blame you. I made that decision a few days ago. It is, what it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you understand the difference between unverified and unverifiable? Those aren't the same word, nor do they mean the same thing.

Good grief. Something that is verifiable is something that with the right equipment or technology can be verified. Something that can not be verified such as whether Albert Einstein sneezed on March 11 in the year 1898 is not verifiable.

False. If you can produce a set of potential observations that would falsify a hypothesis, then you have a verifiable hypothesis.

Potential observations are only that until the time in which they are verified. They may be a verifiable hypothesis if they can be at some time verified, I said that.

Why does it give that appearance of intent?

That the "dials" are set in such a way as to make life possible as if planned that way.

That means the same thing.

No it isn't. There is evidence for something, for instance take DNA, we have evidence that DNA exists. Then there is supportive evidence, for instance the UCA, it doesn't have any evidence of it but supportive for it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sometimes all I can do is shake my head and give up.


Dizredux

It couldn't possibly be that you have misunderstood what I am saying right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't blame you. I made that decision a few days ago. It is, what it is.

No, you will continue to pop in and make your assessments on my psychological well being.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good grief. Something that is verifiable is something that with the right equipment or technology can be verified.

Then the Higgs boson wasn verifiable since it could be tested for using the LHC.

That the "dials" are set in such a way as to make life possible as if planned that way.

The same way in which the "dials" are set in such a way as to make specific people win the lottery. The lottery has the same appearance of design that our universe has.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. When you say that something is supported it means that you have evidence. That is what those words mean. Please stop using weasel words.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then the Higgs boson wasn verifiable since it could be tested for using the LHC.

I said that.

The same way in which the "dials" are set in such a way as to make specific people win the lottery. The lottery has the same appearance of design that our universe has.

Like I have said many times, it would not be like someone winning the lottery once, but over and over like over 30 times. Someone would be calling it rigged.

Yes, it is. When you say that something is supported it means that you have evidence. That is what those words mean. Please stop using weasel words.

Where is the evidence of the UCA? I want either a fossil or the actual UCA.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I have said many times, it would not be like someone winning the lottery once, but over and over like over 30 times. Someone would be calling it rigged.

Why isn't someone calling it rigged when the chances of winning just once are 1 in 150 million?

Also, it does happen over and over 30 times. More than 30 people have won the lottery.

Where is the evidence of the UCA? I want either a fossil or the actual UCA.

The evidence is the shared genetic and metabolic systems. Already discussed several times now. I do claim it is evidence, and stand by it as evidence. I don't shrink away and claim that I don't have evidence, and then turn around and say that the UCA is supported. I don't use weasel words like you do.