Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

No, you are changing my claims.

I am claiming that the universe is no more fine tuned for life than it is any other feature in the universe. Your retort is that scientists disagree with me. The position that would disagree with me is that fine tuning is specifically for life and only life.

I never claimed it was fine tuned for only life. I have repeatedly commented that the universe itself would not exist if not for fine tuning.

Do you disagree with the scientists?

I disagree with subjective conclusions that they come to at times. Davies says that he doesn't believe in God, that has no evidence but he says that anyway. There are things in science based on data that is objective and can be shown to others and then there are conclusions based on evidence that even scientists disagree on.

That's not what I asked. Do you disagree with Davies?

More dishonesty: I clearly answered your question:

Does Davies have any evidence that has objective data that a conclusion such as this can be made? IF so please present it because I've never seen any evidence that he has presented to support that conclusion. I have however seen data confirmed by others that support the fine tuning of the universe.

So unless I see evidence that he has data that can objectively be shown that the universe fixed itself then I disagree with his subjective conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another scientist making a similar argument to mine:

Exactly right???? Really? Even if the universe were fine-tuned for life (and I don’t think for a minute it was), how, my dear Mr. Klinghoffer, can you distinguish God’s fine-tuning the universe for life versus fine-tuning it for human life? After all, the physical constants required for both kinds of tuning are identical!

The fact that he and others make this argument is a clear sign that their arguments are based not on science but on religion. For it is only scripture and not science that argues that humans are special creatures on this planet. The phrase “the fine-tuning of the cosmos specifically for human life” gives away the religious roots of intelligent design—roots that people like Klinghoffer repeatedly deny.

And, as I’ve argued before, you can’t sensibly make the argument that the evolution of humans or human-like creatures was inevitable. Even given determinism, if mutations are inherently nondeterministic phenomena, and evolution depends, as it does, on what mutations appear, then we can’t say that the appearance of any specific species or morphology was inevitable.

Have a look at the trailer given below for the upcoming creationist movie “Privileged Species” touted by Klinghoffer. Notice that there is not one bit of evidence in this [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] trailer that humans, as opposed to any other oxygen-using species, are “privileged.” The trailer emphasizes oxygen, which is of course a requirement for animal life. But that oxygen was produced by the photosynthesis of plants, not by God. And since hummingbirds have a higher per gram requirement for oxygen than humans, I conclude that if the Earth was was fine-tuned for life, the ultimate aim of God’s machinations was hummingbirds, the apotheosis of creation.

Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D
A universe fine-tuned for humans? « Why Evolution Is True
​

The fact that life is being given a privileged position by ID proponents denotes that it is a religious argument and not a scientific one. As shown, the universe is as finely tuned for Mt. Fuji as it is for humans, or for any species.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never claimed it was fine tuned for only life. I have repeatedly commented that the universe itself would not exist if not for fine tuning.

Then why aren't you arguing as strongly for the fine tuning responsible for Venus, or the Hale-Bopp comet? Why do you only only refer to life?

I disagree with subjective conclusions that they come to at times. Davies says that he doesn't believe in God, that has no evidence but he says that anyway. There are things in science based on data that is objective and can be shown to others and then there are conclusions based on evidence that even scientists disagree on.

The scientists are also saying that the appearance of design is subjective.

More dishonesty: I clearly answered your question:

No you didn't. I asked if you disagreed with him or not. I didn't ask your opinion of the evidence that he had.

You keep asking me why I disagree with the scientists when it is actually you who disagrees with the scientists.

I disagree with his subjective conclusion.

Then we can all see who is the one who is disagreeing with the scientists.

 

[Gottservant]

God did not create the Universe directly, the Universe is a bi-product of whom He did want to create: us.

The whole debate around the agency of God in creating the Universe, is specifically a tactic to cause those whom God created to reject Him on the basis of what they see of themselves beyond the world, before what is of their faith can be manifest in Heaven.

If the Devil can show that God's creation rejects Him, on the basis of how they wanted to live, rather than what they were, even what they were can be said to be for nothing and the power of their creation is ceded to the Devil, not for evil, but for destruction, destruction which is the just desert of those who cede power to the Devil, instead of confessing their sin, sin to believe the lie, rather than trust God, despite the difficulty of believing that He would create a Universe, solely for the benefit of who they are.

Believing God created the Universe solely for the benefit of who we are, is a great responsibility, one that most, without the leading example of the Messenger Christ, would certainly deny.

While it is possible to point to intermittent parallels between how we live and who we think we are in the short term, it is important to remember that such parallels are no substitute for the praise of God, which should always be our foremost concern - Evolutionists are stuck at this point, having a snare in which to wrestle with the flesh, but not believing the hunter who will steal their praise is coming.

 

[Davian]

God did not create the Universe directly, the Universe is a bi-product of whom He did want to create: us.

The whole debate around the agency of God in creating the Universe, is specifically a tactic to cause those whom God created to reject Him on the basis of what they see of themselves beyond the world, before what is of their faith can be manifest in Heaven.

If the Devil can show that God's creation rejects Him, on the basis of how they wanted to live, rather than what they were, even what they were can be said to be for nothing and the power of their creation is ceded to the Devil, not for evil, but for destruction, destruction which is the just desert of those who cede power to the Devil, instead of confessing their sin, sin to believe the lie, rather than trust God, despite the difficulty of believing that He would create a Universe, solely for the benefit of who they are.

Believing God created the Universe solely for the benefit of who we are, is a great responsibility, one that most, without the leading example of the Messenger Christ, would certainly deny.

While it is possible to point to intermittent parallels between how we live and who we think we are in the short term, it is important to remember that such parallels are no substitute for the praise of God, which should always be our foremost concern - Evolutionists are stuck at this point, having a snare in which to wrestle with the flesh, but not believing the hunter who will steal their praise is coming.

What of all the Christians that accept the scientific theory of evolution?

Francis Collins, evangelical Christian and director of the National Human Genome project says:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God - Beliefnet.com

Have you anything that might have him change his mind?

 

[Gottservant]

You ask, "can I convert him?" but if you had believed something of truth, you would have asked "is what he believed going to be ours?"

This is a great foolishness, that men take technology in words and seek to use to it to contradict deeds (as if that justifies lawlessness)

Tell me, when your child grows up and cannot conceive of the difference between him and his reflection, can I tell him "you are part of a population affected by evolution, now"?

 

[Smidlee]

What of all the Christians that accept the scientific theory of evolution?

Francis Collins, evangelical Christian and director of the National Human Genome project says:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God - Beliefnet.com

Have you anything that might have him change his mind?

We know he changed his mind about junk DNA. Notice how just because he was involved in the human genome project doesn't automatically turn him into a high priest so everything that he says is now the "Word of God".
There are more scientist leaving the central dogma idea. It's not the genes that make the biggest difference it's the arrangement which causes by epigenetics.
Even before his book Language of God there were evidence of multiple genetic codes http://vimeo.com/81930637

Francis Collins like so many before him is guilty of thinking cells and DNA are more simplistic than they really are.

 

[RichardParker]

We know he changed his mind about junk DNA. Notice how just because he was involved in the human genome project doesn't automatically turn him into a high priest so everything that he says is now the "Word of God".

Nobody claimed that, this was absolutly not the point.
The point is, that people like you want to claim that the believe in evolution is simply a way of rejecting a god. It's the idea that we've only come up with the idea of evolution to explain away god.
And THIS idea is directly refuted by the existence of people like f.e. Francise Collins, because given that they believe in a god, they hardly needed something to explain away god.
If you believe that these people worshipe a false god, or are misguided doesn't matter, the simple fact that they believe both, evolution and a god, negates the idea that evolution is just believed to dismiss the idea of a god.

 

[Davian]

What of all the Christians that accept the scientific theory of evolution?

Francis Collins, evangelical Christian and director of the National Human Genome project says:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God - Beliefnet.com

Have you anything that might have him change his mind?

You ask, "can I convert him?" but if you had believed something of truth, you would have asked "is what he believed going to be ours?"

This is a great foolishness, that men take technology in words and seek to use to it to contradict deeds (as if that justifies lawlessness)

Tell me, when your child grows up and cannot conceive of the difference between him and his reflection, can I tell him "you are part of a population affected by evolution, now"?

No, then. Just checking.

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

Thread has been cleaned up to removed a few posts for violation of the following rules:

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.

Off-Topic
Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

Please stick to the topic of the OP as members of CF are not the topic of this discussion.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why aren't you arguing as strongly for the fine tuning responsible for Venus, or the Hale-Bopp comet? Why do you only only refer to life?

Is the Hale-Bopp comet or Venus not part of the universe and the elements within it that contribute to the known features of the universe? The universe itself to exist takes fine tuning. You seem to forget that.

The scientists are also saying that the appearance of design is subjective.

No, they are saying that the appearance of design is objective and that they feel it is not actual is subjective.

No you didn't. I asked if you disagreed with him or not. I didn't ask your opinion of the evidence that he had.

You asked: So you agree with Davies that the universe fixed itself?

I answered: Does Davies have any evidence that has objective data that a conclusion such as this can be made? IF so please present it because I've never seen any evidence that he has presented to support that conclusion. I have however seen data confirmed by others that support the fine tuning of the universe.

So unless I see evidence that he has data that can objectively be shown that the universe fixed itself then I disagree with his subjective conclusion.

Now your question was do you agree with Davies that the universe fixed itself and as you see in my response I answered I disagreed. I even explained why I disagreed.

You keep asking me why I disagree with the scientists when it is actually you who disagrees with the scientists.

I agree with the scientific data that the scientists have accumulated that includes measurements that are so precise and necessary they appear to be designed. The scientific consensus is that it appears to be designed. They base that on the actual data they have gathered and the consequences of any minimally changed constant.

Many have included and specifically Davies that the appearance of design is not actual design. They have no evidence (unlike the evidence they have for the appearance of design) that prohibits the appearance being actual and come to the conclusion it is not actual not by any evidence against it, but by subjective opinion based on their own worldviews. There are other scientists that do believe that God exists and that conclude that the appearance is actual due to their own subjective conclusions based on their own worldview.

Then we can all see who is the one who is disagreeing with the scientists.

Most scientists do not disagree that the universe appears designed. That is my claim and I agree with the scientists that use evidence (the data and measurements of the constants and the necessity of those) to determine the universe appears designed.

I disagree with some of them when they come to conclusions about that evidence that is not supported by evidence against actual design that design is not actual. They are basing this on their subjective opinion and not on evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is the Hale-Bopp comet or Venus not part of the universe and the elements within it that contribute to the known features of the universe? The universe itself to exist takes fine tuning. You seem to forget that.

I am not the one who is forgetting. I keep reminding you of this. You are the one who focuses on life and life only instead of noticing that the universe is not fine tuned just for life.

No, they are saying that the appearance of design is objective and that they feel it is not actual is subjective.

Prove it. Find any of them who say that it is objective. I don't want you claiming it. I want quotes of them saying it.

I agree with the scientific data that the scientists have accumulated that includes measurements that are so precise and necessary they appear to be designed.

I have already shown that they can change by 2% to 10% in some cases. That isn't precise.

The scientific consensus is that it appears to be designed. They base that on the actual data they have gathered and the consequences of any minimally changed constant.

The scientific consensus is that the constants can change much more than you are letting on, and that changes outside of those boundaries for one constant can be made up by more drastic changes in another constant. They also mention that we simply don't know how many other types of universes could produce life. They show why the appearance is false.

They have no evidence (unlike the evidence they have for the appearance of design) that prohibits the appearance being actual and come to the conclusion it is not actual not by any evidence against it, but by subjective opinion based on their own worldviews.

You are shifting the burden of proof once again. It is up to you to demonstrate that there is design.

 

[Dizredux]

No, they are saying that the appearance of design is objective and that they feel it is not actual is subjective.

OK how about some operational definitions so we can measure the appearance of design. How do we determine that something has the appearance of design or not. How do we determine that appearance is valid or not? How can more than one person measure it and come to the same conclusion? This is how science works. These questions and others have to be answered before we can say it is objective.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

OK how about some operational definitions so we can measure the appearance of design.

Dizredux

Bingo!!!

For it to be objectively determined, there must be a verifiable test (that is falsifiable) to determine when design is present.

Appearance is subjective, without a verifiable test to confirm design is present.

 

[Dizredux]

Bingo!!!

For it to be objectively determined, there must be a verifiable test (that is falsifiable) to determine when design is present.

Appearance is subjective, without a verifiable test to confirm design is present.

This is one of the problems with appearance. Appearances can be deceptive. Ask any stage magician.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

This is one of the problems with appearance. Appearances can be deceptive. Ask any stage magician.

Dizredux

I can recall many a people who knew serial killers who claimed; he appeared to be a nice guy.

 

[Dizredux]

I can recall many a people who knew serial killers who claimed; he appeared to be a nice guy.

Yep, I have run into a few of those.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

So Diz, Loudmouth and bshmte your problem isn't with me but with the scientists that do claim the universe appears designed.

 

[bhsmte]

So Diz, Loudmouth and bshmte your problem isn't with me but with the scientists that do claim the universe appears designed.

Two separate issues; yourself and what you claim scientists state. I have been very clear on my observations of your specific debate tactics and those observations have not changed.

So lets move to what you claim scientists state. You say, they have "objectively" determined that the universe "appears" designed.

Please provide support from these scientists that states specifically, they "objectively" determined the appearance of this design, which would mean, they must possess, some form of verifiable test to make that determination.

Lastly, the fact that these same scientists that you hold tightly to, disagree with your own conclusions just strengthens my premise, that you will latch onto any tid bit, to maintain your confirmation bias.

To give you an analogy, that would be like going to a doctor to have a growth examined on your skin. The doctor looks at the appearance of the growth and states; this does not appear to be cancerous. The doctor takes a biopsy of the growth and sends it to the lab and the test comes back positive for cancer. You then decide, I am going to ignore the results of the biopsy and go with the doctors initial opinion based on appearance.

 

[Dizredux]

So Diz, Loudmouth and bshmte your problem isn't with me but with the scientists that do claim the universe appears designed.

Ah, Once's famous "So" at work.

No, at least with me, it is the idea that the appearance of design implies or supports design-It doesn't and I truly believe your thinking is more than a bit muddled on this.

Dizredux