Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

...snip...

I've decided to try one last time.

The question at hand is "Could the universe have been any different? Why is it the way it is?"

Do you understand and agree that "fine-tuning" is an answer to that question and not part of the question?

What you ask is: "why is the universe fine-tuned?"
Which is the equivalent of "why do you hit your wife?"

The question at hand asks for an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Any answer one might propose must be motivated and backed by a testable model, by evidence.

"Fine-tuning" is quite a claim as the answer. It implies an act of adjusting parameters to certain values for a specific purpose. To support the answer of fine-tuning one must thus provide evidence of that event. It's the only thing that could motivate such an answer. That's the data that would suggest any tuning at all.

So, without appealing to authority, please provide me directly with that evidence. "a scientist says" is not evidence. That's just repeating the claim of the supposed scientist. If the scientist says it in a scientific context, then he must base that answer on the evidence I'm asking for here. Please point me directly to that evidence.

Thanks.

 

[Dizredux]

The message of Christ, concerning creation, is in my sig line. One either accepts it or rejects it, but it does not include the impetus of only naturalistic mechanisms creating humans and pine trees from an alleged life form of long long ago.

Then why, pray tell, are you so dishonest when defending your idea of "only naturalistic mechanisms". You assert this but have never shown where this is taught in public school nor is it in the scientific literature. When you try to defend it, you are seldom honest. I mean asserting that weather and volcanoes are random as an argument against natural selection for pete's sake.

Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

Actually the complete opposite is true.

The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence, not faith.

That species can and do produce variety is based on evidence. The many other things within the theory like a common ancestor of all creatures and apes morphing into men (for one example, or you could take it back to protoeobacteria morphing into a man) is based on faith.

 

[justlookinla]

Then why, pray tell, are you so dishonest when defending your idea of "only naturalistic mechanisms". You assert this but have never shown where this is taught in public school nor is it in the scientific literature. When you try to defend it, you are seldom honest. I mean asserting that weather and volcanoes are random as an argument against natural selection for pete's sake.

Dizredux

Let's try to determine what, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, created humanity and pine trees according in the evolutionary process.

Anyone have any ideas?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That species can and do produce variety is based on evidence. The many other things within the theory like a common ancestor of all creatures and apes morphing into men (for one example, or you could take it back to protoeobacteria morphing into a man) is based on faith.

Is doing genetic tests to see where your geographic ancestry is based on faith?

For example, https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
Is the genographic project based on faith?

 

[justlookinla]

Is doing genetic tests to see where your geographic ancestry is based on faith?

For example, https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
Is the genographic project based on faith?

Nothing to see here folks, move on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's try to determine what, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, created humanity and pine trees according in the evolutionary process.

Anyone have any ideas?

I have none. Do you have any?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nothing to see here folks, move on.

Reading something you don't like?

 

[justlookinla]

I have none. Do you have any?

It's encouraging to see that you haven't been duped into believing that only naturalistic mechanisms created both you and pine trees from the same alleged life form of long long ago.

See my sig line for my faith based belief.

 

[justlookinla]

Reading something you don't like?

No, just nothing to see there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's encouraging to see that you haven't been duped into believing that only naturalistic mechanisms created both you and pine trees from the same alleged life form of long long ago.

Everybody here has been telling you that that isn't what they believe.
I have to.

You're just a very annoying broken record, hellbend on derailing every thread with your favorite scratched tune.

See my sig line for my faith based belief.

Have fun with that belief system while the rest of us make progress.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, just nothing to see there.

Nothing you wish to know about, you mean.

 

[justlookinla]

Everybody here has been telling you that that isn't what they believe.
I have to.

You're just a very annoying broken record, hellbend on derailing every thread with your favorite scratched tune.

What else is there other than only naturalistic mechanisms which created both humanity and pine trees from the same alleged life form of long long ago? I mean, according to them. Apparently you don't have an opinion.

Have fun with that belief system while the rest of us make progress.

You haven't made enough progress to have an view about the sufficiency, or insufficiency, of only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity and a pine tree from a single life form of long long ago, have you?

Honestly, that's not much progress, IMO.

 

[EternalDragon]

Is doing genetic tests to see where your geographic ancestry is based on faith?

For example, https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
Is the genographic project based on faith?

No. The link shows how humans produced variety. A fact that
is scientifically true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What else is there other than only naturalistic mechanisms which created both humanity and pine trees from the same alleged life form of long long ago?

I know of no such thing and there's nothing to suggest there should be.
Just like I know of nothing else but natural physics to account for not floating away into space.

Why do you ask?

You haven't made enough progress to have an view about the sufficiency, or insufficiency, of only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity and a pine tree from a single life form of long long ago, have you?

I don't understand the question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. The link shows how humans produced variety

No, not really.

The genographic project traces back your geographic ancestry using your DNA.

It looks for certain genetic markers and maps it in a database. Using those markers, they trace your ancestry. This is how they find out that your ancestors for example came through asia.

A fact that is scientifically true

So why can't the exact same techniques be used to trace ancestry with other species?

 

[justlookinla]

I know of no such thing and there's nothing to suggest there should be.
Just like I know of nothing else but natural physics to account for not floating away into space.

Why do you ask?

When you said "everybody here has been telling you that that isn't what they believe", I assumed the 'everyone' included you. If everyone (including you?) don't believe that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity and pine trees from a single life form of long long ago, and just speaking for yourself, why not tell us what you believe created us other than only naturalistic mechanisms?

I don't understand the question.

You said you were making progress concerning identifying what, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, created both humanity and pine trees, weren't you?

 

[Smidlee]

What on Earth is a Frankencell?

Evolution for Intellectuals, by R. David Pogge - YouTube

Please present evidence that it didn't exist, as you claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've decided to try one last time.

The question at hand is "Could the universe have been any different? Why is it the way it is?"

Do you understand and agree that "fine-tuning" is an answer to that question and not part of the question?

What you ask is: "why is the universe fine-tuned?"
Which is the equivalent of "why do you hit your wife?"

The question at hand asks for an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Any answer one might propose must be motivated and backed by a testable model, by evidence.

"Fine-tuning" is quite a claim as the answer. It implies an act of adjusting parameters to certain values for a specific purpose. To support the answer of fine-tuning one must thus provide evidence of that event. It's the only thing that could motivate such an answer. That's the data that would suggest any tuning at all.

So, without appealing to authority, please provide me directly with that evidence. "a scientist says" is not evidence. That's just repeating the claim of the supposed scientist. If the scientist says it in a scientific context, then he must base that answer on the evidence I'm asking for here. Please point me directly to that evidence.

Thanks.

Evidence of what exactly?

 

[Davian]

I've decided to try one last time.

The question at hand is "Could the universe have been any different? Why is it the way it is?"

Do you understand and agree that "fine-tuning" is an answer to that question and not part of the question?

What you ask is: "why is the universe fine-tuned?"
Which is the equivalent of "why do you hit your wife?"

The question at hand asks for an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Any answer one might propose must be motivated and backed by a testable model, by evidence.

"Fine-tuning" is quite a claim as the answer. It implies an act of adjusting parameters to certain values for a specific purpose. To support the answer of fine-tuning one must thus provide evidence of that event. It's the only thing that could motivate such an answer. That's the data that would suggest any tuning at all.

So, without appealing to authority, please provide me directly with that evidence. "a scientist says" is not evidence. That's just repeating the claim of the supposed scientist. If the scientist says it in a scientific context, then he must base that answer on the evidence I'm asking for here. Please point me directly to that evidence.

Thanks.

Evidence of what exactly?

Give it up, DH.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Leave her to do that.