Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

There is the denial. It appears that you are the one denying fine tuning.

Have you been drinking? How do you come up with that!

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, tuning requires activity and a desired result.

You haven't shown any such thing.

Each and every piano is tuned according to a standard scale. By a tuner. With a desired result.

A random tuning would also be fine tuned to that scale and that piano. You are ignoring the fact that a scale doesn't have to be a standard scale. A randomly tuned piano would produce sounds and chords unique to that piano, and the chords and scales it produces would be specific to the strings in that piano. It would be fine tuned if you get to decide afterwards what the scale is, which is exactly what you are doing with the universe. There is already life in the universe. You come along later and declare that life was the desired outcome from the start, but you have no evidence that this is the case.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you been drinking? How do you come up with that!

The chances of a specific person winning the lottery is 1 in 150 million. Therefore, the lottery has to be fine tuned for that person to win. When we add up the last 40 winners, the fine tuning needed for those specific people to win is on the same level as the fine tuning you declare for our universe. We are both using the same assumption that the outcome was the planned and desired outcome.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown any such thing.



A random tuning would also be fine tuned to that scale and that piano. You are ignoring the fact that a scale doesn't have to be a standard scale. A randomly tuned piano would produce sounds and chords unique to that piano, and the chords and scales it produces would be specific to the strings in that piano. It would be fine tuned if you get to decide afterwards what the scale is, which is exactly what you are doing with the universe. There is already life in the universe. You come along later and declare that life was the desired outcome from the start, but you have no evidence that this is the case.

Non-religious scientists disagree with you. They do have evidence and I have presented it. You do this:

 

[Loudmouth]

Non-religious scientists disagree with you. They do have evidence and I have presented it.

I fully agree that life could only exist in a narrow range of constants.

How does that evidence a fine tuner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The chances of a specific person winning the lottery is 1 in 150 million. Therefore, the lottery has to be fine tuned for that person to win. When we add up the last 40 winners, the fine tuning needed for those specific people to win is on the same level as the fine tuning you declare for our universe. We are both using the same assumption that the outcome was the planned and desired outcome.

IF I win the lottery once then I am the 1 in 150 million. If I win again and then 30 more times this is not just the way the lottery is "fine tuned" and I would be investigated for fraud because no one would win over 30 times. The rarity of that happening would be so improbable that the Chances probably come to zero.

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't shown any such thing.

The piano tuner.

A random tuning would also be fine tuned to that scale and that piano.

There could be no random tuning. The tuning on a piano is precise or it's not in tune.

You are ignoring the fact that a scale doesn't have to be a standard scale.

Yes it does. Middle C is never the third key from the right on piano.

A randomly tuned piano would produce sounds and chords unique to that piano, and the chords and scales it produces would be specific to the strings in that piano.

It wouldn't be in tune. Randomness doesn't tune the piano to produce music which matches the frequencies of each note in harmony with another.

It would be fine tuned if you get to decide afterwards what the scale is, which is exactly what you are doing with the universe. There is already life in the universe. You come along later and declare that life was the desired outcome from the start, but you have no evidence that this is the case.

You make a C-E-G cord and fine that those frequencies harmonize. The tuner satisfied his active and designed objective.

 

[Loudmouth]

The piano tuner.

Piano tuners don't make universes.

There could be no random tuning. The tuning on a piano is precise or it's not in tune.

It will always be in tune if you decide what the scale is after inspecting the piano.

 

[justlookinla]

Piano tuners don't make universes.

Anything which is tuned requires a tuner.

It will always be in tune if you decide what the scale is after inspecting the piano.

The standard is already decided. C-E-G makes harmonious frequencies.

 

[Loudmouth]

IF I win the lottery once then I am the 1 in 150 million. If I win again and then 30 more times this is not just the way the lottery is "fine tuned" and I would be investigated for fraud because no one would win over 30 times. The rarity of that happening would be so improbable that the Chances probably come to zero.

The odds of you winning the lottery 30 times in a row is the same as 30 specific people winning the lottery. I have already shown you this.

The odds of John B winning the lottery is 1 in 150 million. The odds of Susan C winning the lottery after John B is 1 in 150 million to the 2nd power. The odds of John B, then Susan C, then Ralph P winning the lottery, in that order, is 150 million to the 3rd power. On it climbs. If you get to decide after 40 drawings that those were the planned and desired outcomes, then it is as fine tuned as our universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Anything which is tuned requires a tuner.

That is an unevidenced assertion.

The standard is already decided. C-E-G makes harmonious frequencies.

I can claim any scale I want after the fact which is exactly what you are doing with our universe. You are declaring that the universe was meant for life after you already observed life in the universe. I am doing the same with scales. Whatever scale the piano produces, I will declare that this was the desired scale all along, so it is fine tuned.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, nothing has demonstrated, 'scientifically' or otherwise, that only naturalistic mechanisms is the source, or capable, of producing the incomprehensible complex and varied life forms of today.

Moths producing moths, bacteria producing bacteria and slight changes in beak sizes offers nothing of the sort.

Sorry, your denial of the discovery of the common descent of all life does not do away with the discovery of the common descent of al life.

This isn't playing word games, this is pointing out that absolutely no evidence, scientifically or otherwise, is offered that only naturalistic mechanisms created you and me, and everyone participating on this forum, from a single life form of long long ago. Neither is there evidence that the same mechanisms also produced a pine tree while creating humanity.

Evidence offered includes nested hierarchy, fossil record consistent with development of that hierarchy over vast eons, common genetic code, common life chemistry, and regular discovery of more and more transitional species. There is so much evidence, and more all the time, that for you to claim there is no evidence is to indulge in word games. And that's putting it kindly.

Those who embrace such atheistic creationist views are doing it by faith, there's no evidence.

Evolution is not atheistic. There is no philosophical reason to suppose God could not have deliberately set up a world in which evolution worked

You and I also embrace a creationist view by faith, ours is a theistic view though. Don't try to suggest that both the atheistic and theistic views are compatible for they're not. That will deceive and lead people astray.

Well of course atheistic and theistic views are opposite. But evolution can be accepted by theists as well as atheists. You should stop suggesting that evolution is exclusively atheistic, it is not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

......... what the...?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Give it up, DH.

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

Leave her to do that.

That answer of hers was indeed the last straw.

I think I should be proud that I stuck with it for this long ha?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You do understand that this statement makes you look ...stubborn and shows you are in denial of scientific evidence that does not support your own worldview...right?

YOU are accusing HIM of stubbornness?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am giving the evidence that DogmaHunter asked for.

No, you aren't. You're repeating claims and/or making appeals to authority.

I specifically asked you not to do that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You wouldn't have to if you declare that the piano is in tune, no matter what sound it makes.

Brilliant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ask DogmaHunter, his big denial point is that fine tuning does indeed point to a tuner and so he denies fine tuning all together.

No. Read my "last try" post again.

"fine-tuning" is a proposed answer to the question "why is the universe the way it is". It's not PART of the question, like you are trying to ask it: "why is the universe fine-tuned?"

Do you understand the difference?

The first is an honest question. The second is a loaded question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, tuning requires activity and a desired result.

Indeed.

So in order to establish something as "tuned" one must provide:
1. evidence of that activity
2. evidence that the current state was the desired result

Where is this evidence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

IF I win the lottery once then I am the 1 in 150 million. If I win again and then 30 more times this is not just the way the lottery is "fine tuned" and I would be investigated for fraud because no one would win over 30 times. The rarity of that happening would be so improbable that the Chances probably come to zero.

So where are the other 29 universes that are "rigged for life" to make your analogy work?