Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Your personal perception of the world is not evidence. Anyone thinking the universe looks designed is not in and of itself evidence for it. You have not presented any scientific evidence for your position thus far

I thought you were one that believes all things including evidence is sifted through our subjective minds.

It is evidence that the universe appears designed. That is the evidence and that is my claim.

bhsmte · Oct 10, 2014

Davian said:
Are you referring to your perception of reality as a fact?

At times it sure sounds as such. The poster tends to dab their feet into this area, then backs off when challenged, continusing the trend we have seen.

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Your personal perception of the world is not evidence. Anyone thinking the universe looks designed is not in and of itself evidence for it. You have not presented any scientific evidence for your position thus far

Just what position are you referring to?

PsychoSarah · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
I thought you were one that believes all things including evidence is sifted through our subjective minds.

It is evidence that the universe appears designed. That is the evidence and that is my claim.

A conclusion is not evidence. In your perspective, the evidence leads you to conclude design, whereas for me it leads to the opposite. The evidence itself isn't different to any significant extent between us, and yet we get opposing conclusions. This inevitably means that the evidence itself doesn't support either of our conclusions over the other, because we can both defend our perspectives at relatively the same level with the same essential information. In short, we shouldn't conclude either position without additional evidence to break the "tie". But we do anyways because flawed humans, I guess.

The point is, the evidence isn't conclusive.

PsychoSarah · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Just what position are you referring to?

Both general positions, really. I think arguing over whether or not the universe is designed is pointless.

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
A conclusion is not evidence. In your perspective, the evidence leads you to conclude design, whereas for me it leads to the opposite. The evidence itself isn't different to any significant extent between us, and yet we get opposing conclusions. This inevitably means that the evidence itself doesn't support either of our conclusions over the other, because we can both defend our perspectives at relatively the same level with the same essential information. In short, we shouldn't conclude either position without additional evidence to break the "tie". But we do anyways because flawed humans, I guess.

The point is, the evidence isn't conclusive.

This is not true. I think that your position is coming from not understanding the fine tuned parameters of the universe, why scientists agree that those appear designed.

You have two options here:

1. You disagree with the consensus of the astrophysicists and physicists that the universe appears designed.
2. You agree with the consensus of the astrophysicists and physicists that the universe appears designed.

What is your position on this issue?

PsychoSarah · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
This is not true. I think that your position is coming from not understanding the fine tuned parameters of the universe, why scientists agree that those appear designed.

You have two options here:

1. You disagree with the consensus of the astrophysicists and physicists that the universe appears designed.
2. You agree with the consensus of the astrophysicists and physicists that the universe appears designed.

What is your position on this issue?

1. Actually, I don't view this point as being relevant enough for me to check, because it has no bearing on how likely the universe is to be a designed item.
2. Even if I thought the universe LOOKED designed, which I don't, that wouldn't mean I thought it actually was. It is a superficial observation, like claiming that a certain hair color is attractive.

My position is that the universe isn't designed, or that if it is, the design isn't particularly intelligent or fine tuned. To me, the universe has too many flaws to be considered "fine-tuned". Even if a deity presented itself to me as the creator of the universe, I wouldn't consider it fine-tuned.

selfinflikted · Oct 10, 2014

Something I've always wondered: If the universe is designed by some "god" or other related entity, why is it so vast considering our habitable spot is so very insignificant next to the enormity of the rest of the universe? Seems like an awful lot of wasted space to me.

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
1. Actually, I don't view this point as being relevant enough for me to check, because it has no bearing on how likely the universe is to be a designed item.
2. Even if I thought the universe LOOKED designed, which I don't, that wouldn't mean I thought it actually was. It is a superficial observation, like claiming that a certain hair color is attractive.

My position is that the universe isn't designed, or that if it is, the design isn't particularly intelligent or fine tuned. To me, the universe has too many flaws to be considered "fine-tuned". Even if a deity presented itself to me as the creator of the universe, I wouldn't consider it fine-tuned.

So you disagree with the scientists that have determined that the universe appears designed. You have not researched why they have come to that conclusion and don't want to. Your perception of the universe is based on your opinion that the universe has too many flaws to be fine tuned although you don't know what fine tuned means in terms that the Scientists have used to determine that. So what you accuse me of you practice yourself. You make determinations on what you belief rather than what evidence the scientists are using to determine their conclusions.

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

selfinflikted said:
Something I've always wondered: If the universe is designed by some "god" or other related entity, why is it so vast considering our habitable spot is so very insignificant next to the enormity of the rest of the universe? Seems like an awful lot of wasted space to me.

The time and space are necessary elements to the existence of intelligent life.

selfinflikted · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
The time and space are necessary elements to the existence of intelligent life.

Ok, so why so much space? Earth, where we live, is such an almost infinitely small place compared to the vastness of the rest of the universe. It's overkill. So, why is space so big if the universe was designed to be home to us "special" humans, who take up so very little space?

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

selfinflikted said:
Ok, so why so much space? Earth, where we live, is such an almost infinitely small place compared to the vastness of the rest of the universe. It's overkill. So, why is space so big if the universe was designed to be home to us "special" humans, who take up so very little space?

The Universe must be as big and diffuse as it is to last long enough to give rise to life" ("The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World," Nature, April 12, 1979).

No universe can provide several billion years of stellar cooking time unless it is several billion light years across. If the size of the universe were reduced from 1022 to 1011 stars, that smaller but still galaxy-sized universe might seem roomy enough, but it would run through its entire cycle of expansion and recontraction in about one year. And if the matter of the universe were not as homogeneous as it is, then large portions of it would have been so dense that they would already have undergone gravitational collapse. Other portions would have been so thin that they could not have given birth to galaxies and stars. On the other hand, if it were entirely homogeneous, then the chunks of matter that make development possible could not have assembled. (See John A. Wheeler, "The Universe as Home for Man." in Owen Gingerich, editor, The Nature of Scientific Discovery.)

Some others:

Cosmic Fine Tuning and Life - Our place in the Universe

Life must also be in the right location in the galaxy. We are situated in the right place in the Milky Way. If we were too close to the centre of the galaxy (closer to the black hole), harmful radiation would make life impossible. Conversely, if our planet was too far out in the periphery, not enough heavy elements would be available for the construction of habitable planets.

Life must also have the right type of star. Stars act as energy sources for life. Most stars are too large, too bright or too unstable to support life. The size and age of the sun enhances the earths hospitality. If the earth were moved 1% closer to the sun, bodies of water would vaporize, and life would not be possible. If the earth were as much as 2% farther from the sun, its waters would freeze. Earth has a nearly circular orbit, which ensures a nearly constant distance from the sun -- ensuring that seasonal changes are not too severe. -

See more at: Cosmic Fine Tuning and Life

PsychoSarah · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
So you disagree with the scientists that have determined that the universe appears designed. You have not researched why they have come to that conclusion and don't want to. Your perception of the universe is based on your opinion that the universe has too many flaws to be fine tuned although you don't know what fine tuned means in terms that the Scientists have used to determine that. So what you accuse me of you practice yourself. You make determinations on what you belief rather than what evidence the scientists are using to determine their conclusions.

No, what I said was that I have no desire to check and see whether or not the majority of Physicists think the universe appears designed. This is not the same thing as ignoring reasons why people think it is designed, I do investigate that. I just don't care about how many people have that perspective, because the truth is not a popularity contest and appearances can be deceiving.

I might not know the exact terminology, as this is far from being the area of science I am best at, but I get the jist. And I say singularities of doom are a horrendous flaw. And if some people define "fine tuned" differently than I do, so what? All it means is that I have to consider their perspective of what "fine tuned" means if I get specific about who I disagree with. But I would rather not waste time arguing over a superficial opinion, and have been trying to stop people from further doing so repeatedly in discussion.

We both are biased in our conclusions, and I recognize that fact. My conclusion is what I think, but I'd never claim to have evidence or knowledge that makes me feel secure in that position.

Davian · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
So you disagree with the scientists that have determined that the universe appears designed. You have not researched why they have come to that conclusion and don't want to.
...

How do you know what conclusions they did or did not want to come to? They came to the conclusion that it only appears to be designed, and that there is no evidence for a designer deity, and you want to use that as your "evidence"?

Do you ever see bunnies in clouds?

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
No, what I said was that I have no desire to check and see whether or not the majority of Physicists think the universe appears designed. This is not the same thing as ignoring reasons why people think it is designed, I do investigate that. I just don't care about how many people have that perspective, because the truth is not a popularity contest and appearances can be deceiving.

I find it odd that you would not want to investigate why the majority of Physicists say the universe appears designed but you will investigate why people think it is designed. That seems a little off from your normal operation, it seems you are one that wants evidence and the position the physicists take is one based on the evidence they have accumulated to warrant that conclusion. Appearances can be deceiving and that is why they have tests to determine these things.

I might not know the exact terminology, as this is far from being the area of science I am best at, but I get the jist.

I beg to differ when you use the sentence below to argue against it.

And I say singularities of doom are a horrendous flaw. And if some people define "fine tuned" differently than I do, so what?

It is not how they define it, it is a term used to describe it.

All it means is that I have to consider their perspective of what "fine tuned" means if I get specific about who I disagree with. But I would rather not waste time arguing over a superficial opinion, and have been trying to stop people from further doing so repeatedly in discussion.

I guess you would have to define superficial. It is hardly superficial and if you would investigate it you might find that you change your mind.

We both are biased in our conclusions, and I recognize that fact. My conclusion is what I think, but I'd never claim to have evidence or knowledge that makes me feel secure in that position.

Yet you won't research to see the evidence, to see if your conclusion fit with it.

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

Davian said:
How do you know what conclusions they did or did not want to come to? They came to the conclusion that it only appears to be designed, and that there is no evidence for a designer deity, and you want to use that as your "evidence"?

Do you ever see bunnies in clouds?

My claim is that the universe appears to be designed. I base that on the conclusions of Physicists and other scientists and how they have come to that conclusion.

PsychoSarah · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
I find it odd that you would not want to investigate why the majority of Physicists say the universe appears designed but you will investigate why people think it is designed. That seems a little off from your normal operation, it seems you are one that wants evidence and the position the physicists take is one based on the evidence they have accumulated to warrant that conclusion. Appearances can be deceiving and that is why they have tests to determine these things.

I beg to differ when you use the sentence below to argue against it.

It is not how they define it, it is a term used to describe it.

I guess you would have to define superficial. It is hardly superficial and if you would investigate it you might find that you change your mind.

Yet you won't research to see the evidence, to see if your conclusion fit with it.

Again, I read the arguments and reasons why people think the universe appears designed. What I don't do is count how many people have this position in comparison to those who don't.

I felt like being dramatic, so I didn't say black holes.

Commenting on how something "appears" is a superficial observation.

I did look at the evidence BEFORE making a conclusion. You shouldn't conclude something before investigating the general topic. I thought the universe was wonky before I even heard the phrase "fine tuned".

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Again, I read the arguments and reasons why people think the universe appears designed. What I don't do is count how many people have this position in comparison to those who don't.

What have you read about the universe appearing to be designed?

PsychoSarah · Oct 10, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
What have you read about the universe appearing to be designed?

Off the top of my head, how the abundance of certain elements makes our universe ideal for carbon based life was described very well. Lots of arguments to remember, hmm, and a lot to do with various theories that unfortunately are in deadlock with other conflicting theories. How a very distant star influenced what sort of carbon our bodies can utilize was very fascinating. The various doom scenarios our planet narrowly avoided are astoundingly high in number. I am working with pure recall here, but if you want to pick one of these for extra details I can probably get more in depth.

Oncedeceived · Oct 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Off the top of my head, how the abundance of certain elements makes our universe ideal for carbon based life was described very well. Lots of arguments to remember, hmm, and a lot to do with various theories that unfortunately are in deadlock with other conflicting theories. How a very distant star influenced what sort of carbon our bodies can utilize was very fascinating. The various doom scenarios our planet narrowly avoided are astoundingly high in number. I am working with pure recall here, but if you want to pick one of these for extra details I can probably get more in depth.

Here is a list of some posted on GodandScience website.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Under Deck

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Under Deck

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

fallible

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency