Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

We don't just see "appearances" of fine tuning either. We observe very specific phenomena that show life exists due to them.

No. We've been over this far too many times, once. It is not "observed" that the universe is fine tuned since that would require observing the process of the "tuning" by a "tuner".

The values are actual measurements and they are life permitting or we wouldn't be here to observe them.

No poo, Sherlock!

The values themselves are what they are and they don't hint at why they are what they are. In the minds of certain people, they might appear to be a certain way. In the minds of others, they might appear another way. It's not all that interesting.

They are real and they are fine tuned to allow for life to exist.

Invalid assertion.

So? I know that there are the tests and experiments that astrophysicists use to determine their theories as well. Quantum physic for one.

"So"??

Fascinating how you accept the tests and experiments from astrophysictists when you feel like you can use them to validate your a priori beliefs, but not the tests and experiments from biologists when they seem to contradict your a priori beliefs.

So you stack the deck as to make an ID impossible to contemplate.

Yeah... once people demand evidence for suggested explanations, it becomes hard to contemplate things for which no evidence exists ha...

You have no reason to assume that evolution without an intelligent designer is possible.

Errr... evolution theory is a working theory with practical application. It doesn't include any designers. I'm not assuming anything.

Your statement is as bizar as saying that "you have no reason to assume gravity is possible without magical graviton fairies".

To say that it is viable and sufficient is not evidence that it could not have needed God to begin with.

Actually, that's exactly what "viable and sufficient" means. That including any designing entities in the process is obsolete. It's not necessary at all. The processes we know of are more then capable of producing the variation that we see in life today.

Does it mean that no designers were involved at all? No. But, again, to suggest they were would require evidence.

So what evidence would you accept to claim that God was necessary?

Sorry, that ship has already sailed.
The facts of genetics have already disproven the claim that a god was necessary. No, it did not prove that gods weren't involved at all. Nothing could ever disprove such a negative. But, once more, if you wish to suggest a god was involved, then the burden of proof is on you.

Why should science determine a priori that God is not necessary?

It's not "a priori". It's after centuries of investigation and study.

Why should a naturalistic system which only studies natural phenomena have anything to say at all about God?

Good question. First of all, it's not a naturalistic system per say. It's a system that looks for natural causes for natural effects. You can call it naturalistic and it wouldn't be that incorrect. But you should first ask yourself why it looks for natural causes. And the answer is simple:
- the supernatural is defined as being unknowable, as something that can't be studied or observed
- nothing supports the existence of the supernatural.

In fact, if the supernatural would actually exist, it would simply be part of the workings of the universe. Ie, it would become "natural".

We are not "required" to believe a designer is involved due to our religious beliefs.

Genesis disagrees.

There are those that believe that evolution stands on its own even with their religious beliefs

Sure. It's called "theistic evolution". And they still desperatly try to pile on extra things on the theory that aren't necessary and which aren't supported. But I can at least respect those attempts. At least they are trying to reconcile reality with what they believe. Unlike some other people, who simply refuse to acknowledge the facts of reality in a rational way.

Regardless, if you wish to know about the natural world the best method is science. IF you want truth, that might not be the case.

What are you talking about?
What alternative to science has a better track record to differentiate what is true from what is false?

There are many things in life that might be true but can not be proven by scientific method.

Such as?

So what is to say what is right?

Evidence.

If tomorrow something arose that falsified evolution what would you say then?

I'ld be absolutely shocked and extremely fascinated. And, off course, I'ld accept the evidence of reality and move on.

(ps: what would be falsified would then be the actual theory, which is mostly natural selection. Common ancestry is not a theory. That's a genetic fact. Life evolved. That's a fact. The actual theory is about the mechanism that made it evolve).

Some stand, but what if tomorrow they didn't?

Then we will have learned something new. Again, it's called progress.

Learning is valuable and necessary. Some people may rather read an ancient book but few I feel would do so instead of learning.

Then you should pay more attention, because plenty of them are on this forum. You're one of them, actually.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is illogical is when someone claims that scientific evidence is faulty if it points to God.

1. You don't think the universe "looks" designed anyway.

Why do you feel it doesn't look designed? You offer no scientific evidence to counter that the universe does indeed appear designed due to the fact that the values in it are fine tuned for life to exist.

2. They support my position in that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist. That it appears designed. Those are two valid and documented points in my position which they support.

You have just ignored my last post to you. I would like you to back up what you are saying. Please provide evidence to support your position. How they destroy my position for starters.

1. I have already given my reasons already, and they are pretty subjective, just like the opinions people have of the universe appearing designed. It sure doesn't look designed to me, but I have never claimed that my subjective opinion has any weight on the matter.

2. No, because a designed universe could appear not to be designed, and a universe which isn't designed could appear to be designed. It is like judging a book by its cover when there is a good possibility that the cover doesn't match the book.

You are ambivalent about acknowledging that many of your sources don't reach the same conclusion you do. This confuses me as well. Why should I prove something that half the time you admit yourself? And furthermore, why are you going back and forth on it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why does a narrow range of constants needed for life point to design?

The point is that all of these values are so precise to allow for life to exist; the values "appear" to have been set for that purpose. Is it more reasonable to conclude that they were designed or that they happened by chance. All scientists agree, that there is just too many of these factors to make it a chance event. There is no reason to believe that they had to be the way they are by the laws of physics, nor is there a reason to believe that a law of everything could explain them. That is why so many are turning to the multiverse for explanation.

All of the evidence we have shows that the mechanisms of evolution are adequate for the differences we see. What evidence do you have for an intelligent designer acting on life?

What evidence is there that shows that the hard outer parts of a creature in the ancient seas managed to evolve into the first vertebrate? How and what evidence explains that first fish with all its hard parts on the inside?

What is the evidence prior to the eyes found in the Cambrian?

Please give the evidence of those two evolutionary outcomes.

It doesn't determine that a priori. If you want to claim that God is involved in a process, then it is up to you to present evidence of God being involved in that process.

This is begging the question. Naturalism is based on natural occurring processes. Science is based on naturalism. What we can do is show what is more cohesive within that view and that which is not. Fine tuning is not cohesive within a natural occurring system.

Evidence. Facts. Reason.

Evidence that can be dismissed at will, facts that can be dismissed at will and without reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is that all of these values are so precise to allow for life to exist; the values "appear" to have been set for that purpose.

Why do they appear that way?

All scientists agree, that there is just too many of these factors to make it a chance event.

That's not true at all, and you know it. I have shown you scientists who have proposed a multiverse.

What evidence is there that shows that the hard outer parts of a creature in the ancient seas managed to evolve into the first vertebrate? How and what evidence explains that first fish with all its hard parts on the inside?

The first vertebrates did not have any hard parts. Perhaps you should read up on vertebrate evolution. The earliest chordates just had a notochord with no bones to protect anything, outside or inside.

What is the evidence prior to the eyes found in the Cambrian?

I said that evolution explains the evidence we do have. Evolution explains the distribution of different eyes in the animal kingdom.

This is begging the question. Naturalism is based on natural occurring processes.

Once God acts in nature, God becomes part of those naturally occuring processes.

Fine tuning is not cohesive within a natural occurring system.

That is a totally unsupported claim.

 

[Davian]

You claimed the appearance of design was a fact.

Yes, I did. So do the scientists in the field.

Opinion is not fact. You said, in post #625 "The "appearance" of design which some claim is not actual design is based on only opinion and no testing or observation has been done to determine the conclusion. The appearance of design or actual design conclusions are not based on scientific data or tested by scientific methodology. It is opinion. "

No. You are confused. They have said that the fine tuning "seems" or "appears" designed. They all agree that the fine tuning is a fact, it is called the fine tuning observation. You seem to be under false assumptions concerning what you think fine tuning is and what apparent design means.

Perhaps you need to tell me in your own words what fine tuning is. Why you feel it is not falsifiable needs addressed as well.

Fine tuning, in that the constants are constant, is not in dispute.

Fine tuning, with the implication that there are 'knobs' somewhere that you can then posit a 'designer' with the ability to twiddle such knobs is unevidenced and unfalsifiable.

I have asked you repeatedly to make yourself clear on this point.

So you believe that with access to other universes design can be falsified?

No, it is the lack of access to other universes that keeps your 'design' and 'fine tuning with knobs' claims unfalsifiable. The existence of other universes is merely hypothetical.

1. Fine tuning is a phenomena observed in our universe and measured by scientific methods. Science has tested by scientific method the values and have come to the observation that they are fine tuned for life. This testing is peer reviewed, scientific in nature and can be falsified.

Not for the possibility of the values actually being different, no.

2. The "appearance" of design which some claim is not actual design is based on only opinion and no testing or observation has been done to determine the conclusion. The appearance of design or actual design conclusions are not based on scientific data or tested by scientific methodology. It is opinion.

I disagree with opinion. Opinion is based on ones worldview. There are those that have come to a new worldview based on the fine tuning of the universe as it convinced them that the appearance of design so overwhelming that it was actual. There are others that do not believe that the appearance of design is actual at all. However, they do so due to their own opinions and not on scientific reasoning.

So your evidence that you claim to have for design is merely opinion.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7847429-56/#post66538825

Post #552.

No, that is for the values of the constants as they apply to life in the universe, and how they can be modeled. That does not address what I asked for, which was how to falsify that the values of the constant could actually have been different.

The consensus of the experts you have cited conclude that the appearance of design is an illusion. Do you agree with that?

I have said no and why.

You do not have the skills to evaluate the data, and you disagree with those that do. Can you make your case any weaker?

 

[JayFern]

Perhaps if some of us were able to remove the imaginary God from the equation it would all sort itself out.

You are in a forum that is about God. If you wish to "remove" God then perhaps you are in the wrong place?

Perhaps you are right, one can not remove something that is not there, I stand corrected.

 

[justlookinla]

It's interesting watching those who embrace atheistic creationism argue for nothing creating the universe and all life in it. Of course their blind faith in nothing is blind faith in nothing, with nothing being their creator. Nothing created them, with 'them' being nothing other than meaningless freaks of naturalistic forces (which were created by nothing) arguing for life being meaningless (other than procreation).

And all this from a single life form of long long ago. What faith!!

 

[Loudmouth]

It's interesting watching those who embrace atheistic creationism argue for nothing creating the universe and all life in it. Of course their blind faith in nothing is blind faith in nothing, with nothing being their creator. Nothing created them, with 'them' being nothing other than meaningless freaks of naturalistic forces (which were created by nothing) arguing for life being meaningless (other than procreation).

And all this from a single life form of long long ago. What faith!!

I have said throughout that I don't know how the universe came about.

 

[justlookinla]

I have said throughout that I don't know how the universe came about.

That's just a very very very small part of the implications of my post. I don't think you understand the implications of nothing creating everything.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's just a very very very small part of the implications of my post. I don't think you understand the implications of nothing creating everything.

What "blind faith in nothing" have I professed?

 

[justlookinla]

What "blind faith in nothing" have I professed?

Not sure. Do you believe the universe and everything in it is the result of nothing or something? If you wish to delay the basic answer, we'll go through the game folks usually play. We'll eventually arrive at the question of first cause sooner or later. And if the universe and everything in it is designed with a designer or if it's simply one humongous infinitely complex creation that's the product of a humongous random kablooey. If it's the latter that you choose to embrace, it would be interesting to examine the source of your need to promote such a view. Being a life form with only one purpose and all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not sure. Do you believe the universe and everything in it is the result of nothing or something?

I have already stated that I don't know how the universe came to be. I know of no evidence that would settle the matter one way or another.

If you wish to delay the basic answer, we'll go through the game folks usually play. We'll eventually arrive at the question of first cause sooner or later. And if the universe and everything in it is designed with a designer or if it's simply one humongous infinitely complex creation that's the product of a humongous random kablooey. If it's the latter that you choose to embrace, it would be interesting to examine the source of your need to promote such a view. Being a life form with only one purpose and all.

If you embrace the former, it would be interesting to examine the source of your need to promote such a view.

 

[justlookinla]

I have already stated that I don't know how the universe came to be. I know of no evidence that would settle the matter one way or another.

It's more than just how the universe came to be.

If you embrace the former, it would be interesting to examine the source of your need to promote such a view.

Why would you care? As just a life form with only one evolutionary purpose (procreation), I mean?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's more than just how the universe came to be.



Why would you care? As just a life form with only one evolutionary purpose (procreation), I mean?

You can't tell someone they have only one purpose, that is their choice what they have for purposes, not yours.

 

[EternalDragon]

You can't tell someone they have only one purpose, that is their choice what they have for purposes, not yours.

In the world of Darwinian Evolution and the philosophy of "when you die there is nothing", there is no real purpose to life.

 

[Davian]

In the world of Darwinian Evolution and the philosophy of "when you die there is nothing", there is no real purpose to life.

"Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. " - wiki

 

[JayFern]

Do you believe the universe and everything in it is the result of nothing or something?

By 'something' do you mean an imaginary God or do you mean something in reality caused it all to happen?

 

[madaz]

In the world of Darwinian Evolution and the philosophy of "when you die there is nothing", there is no real purpose to life.

I think you are projecting again. Within the mindset of man made creation stories and the belief of "when you die there is something" there is actually no real purpose to life, because believers in such nonsense tend to waste this life, trying to prepare for another. They tend to devalue this one and only shot at a real life, because they sincerely believe, they have another better "life" coming.

A mindset which leads to no real purpose to this one and only shot at life.

A mindset that is alarmingly common here at CF.

 

[JayFern]

I think you are projecting again. Within the mindset of man made creation stories and the belief of "when you die there is something" there is actually no real purpose to life, because believers in such nonsense tend to waste this life, trying to prepare for another. They tend to devalue this one and only shot at a real life, because they sincerely believe, they have another better "life" coming.

A mindset which leads to no real purpose to this one and only shot at life.

A mindset that is alarmingly common here at CF.

And that's a fact, they effectively dream away the one and only life they're going to get dreaming of another they're never going to have.

They have been so convinced their next question will be, "how do you know that this is the only life we are going to get?"
The answer is "we don't know" but until there is some evidence that it's not the only thing to do is assume that it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's just a very very very small part of the implications of my post. I don't think you understand the implications of nothing creating everything.

We don't even know what "nothing" is nore what you mean by it.

Your entire opinion on the matter is irrelevant because of that alone.

And that's even ignoring the blatant strawmen you engage in, off course.