Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Davian]

IF you don't like it, hit ignore.

No, I have said many times that I come here for the lulz.

Do you not wonder at times what "unfalsifiable" means?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I have said many times that I come here for the lulz.

Do you not wonder at times what "unfalsifiable" means?

Nope, I totally understand the concept. Do you feel that the apparent design of the universe is unfalsifiable?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would it not be supportive of actual design? Please explain.

Because something can look like it is designed without actually being designed. Clouds that have the appearance of bunnies are not really bunnies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your determination of the fine tuning as being superficial is not valid according to the scientists that have researched it.

Can you please cite scientists claiming that it is more than superficial, and please define what you mean by superficial.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is far from twisted and even scientists that do not believe in God feel it is significant.

Significant for what?

This is another of your vague statements.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think that a computer's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that an automobile's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that space station's appearance of design denotes a designer?

It is more than the appearance of design. It is the actual evidence for design in these objects that leads to the conclusion of design.

If a person from another world found any of these without sign of life or of designers would they just believe it was an appearance rather than actual?

They would find signs of human manufacture that would point to design, such as maker marks, tool marks, etc. None of these things are found in the appearance of our universe, the Earth, or life.

Regardless of what you feel the cause, the appearance of design always supports the possibility of actual design and denying it makes you seem a little irrational.

It also supports the possiblity of no design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because something can look like it is designed without actually being designed. Clouds that have the appearance of bunnies are not really bunnies.

The problem that you seem not to get is that the "appearance" is not what it "looks" like. It is not 'seeing' a pattern in clouds or toast. It is a significant problem that is causing scientists to go to great lengths to explain. Either you don't understand the concept or you are denying what scientists are claiming.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? Most scientists would disagree:

Yet another set of facts we have to keep presenting you.

"Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang"
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Epsilon can differ by more than 10% in both directions (more than 20% overall). That is not "fine" tuning. That is a LOT of wiggle room. Not only that, but that wiggle room is based on the assumption that all other constants stay the same. If Epsilon ventures out of that 20% wiggle room, it can still be compensated for by changes in other constants. There is even MORE wiggle room.

in terms of the tolerance permitted, this example pales into insignificance when we consider the fineness of the tuning of some of the other parameters in nature. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 1016, no stars could have formed.

Let's see Davies own writings on this matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem that you seem not to get is that the "appearance" is not what it "looks" like.

What something looks like IS BY DEFINITION ITS APPEARANCE!

It is not 'seeing' a pattern in clouds or toast.

Yes, it is. That is exactly what is going on.

It is a significant problem that is causing scientists to go to great lengths to explain.

And yet none of those explanations are "a designer did it"

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is more than the appearance of design. It is the actual evidence for design in these objects that leads to the conclusion of design.

It is the actual evidence of such precise measurements and the consequences of those if changed leads to scientists claiming it appears designed. They see the signs that normally designed objects have in the universe.

They would find signs of human manufacture that would point to design, such as maker marks, tool marks, etc. None of these things are found in the appearance of our universe, the Earth, or life.

That is simply false. There are signs that point to design which is the reason why they call it the appearance of design. IF there was nothing that pointed to design there would be no fine tuning problem or observation in science.

It also supports the possiblity of no design.

This is showing your bias. How does the appearance of design support the possibility of no design? That is irrational. The appearance of design supports the possibility of design and if there was no appearance it would denote no design was apparent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What something looks like IS BY DEFINITION ITS APPEARANCE!

Lets put it this way, there are things in life that appear to be something by just looking at them, but once investigated they only "looked" like they were what they seemed to be. In this case, it took investigating the universe to find the appearance of design.

Yes, it is. That is exactly what is going on.

No, I am sorry but that is not whatsoever what is going on. We don't see patterns in the constants of the universe. We see very precise requirements to the values that our universe's existence and we ourselves require to exist. These are not just bunnies in the clouds but real values that must be what they are for the universe or life on earth to exist.

And yet none of those explanations are "a designer did it"

That is only because of worldviews, the restrictions of science and the progress of understanding of the way the universe works.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Significant for what?

This is another of your vague statements.

Let me clarify for you then. Scientists know that the values that we find in our universe could happen by chance. They call this the fine tuning problem and they have went to great lengths to come up with explanations that can eliminate the problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets put it this way, there are things in life that appear to be something by just looking at them, but once investigated they only "looked" like they were what they seemed to be. In this case, it took investigating the universe to find the appearance of design.

How does this change anything?

No, I am sorry but that is not whatsoever what is going on. We don't see patterns in the constants of the universe. We see very precise requirements to the values that our universe's existence and we ourselves require to exist. These are not just bunnies in the clouds but real values that must be what they are for the universe or life on earth to exist.

The same could be said for every universe and the unique features found in that universe. That is where the false appearance of design comes from. It comes from the human bias that we are the center of the universe, and the purpose for the creation of the universe.

That is only because of worldviews, the restrictions of science and the progress of understanding of the way the universe works.

It is because you have no evidence to back your claims. All you use are semantic tricks to make it appear as if you have an argument when you really don't. Notice how the word "appear" is used in context.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists know that the values that we find in our universe could happen by chance. They call this the fine tuning problem and they have went to great lengths to come up with explanations that can eliminate the problem.

You are going to great lengths to create the problem. Until you know how universes are made and how many universes there are, there is no problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet another set of facts we have to keep presenting you.

"Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang"
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Epsilon can differ by more than 10% in both directions (more than 20% overall). That is not "fine" tuning. That is a LOT of wiggle room. Not only that, but that wiggle room is based on the assumption that all other constants stay the same. If Epsilon ventures out of that 20% wiggle room, it can still be compensated for by changes in other constants. There is even MORE wiggle room.



Let's see Davies own writings on this matter.

There are those that might have some wiggle room if that is how you see it but they are not significant enough for physicists to alter their conclusions of fine tuning.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are those that might have some wiggle room if that is how you see it but they are not significant enough for physicists to alter their conclusions of fine tuning.

It isn't a conclusion. Here you go again with semantics. They say that it appears fine tuned which is not evidence for actual design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does this change anything?

Let me ask you, do you think that physicists and astrophysicists are incorrect when they claim the universe is fine tuned and has the appearance of design?

The same could be said for every universe and the unique features found in that universe. That is where the false appearance of design comes from. It comes from the human bias that we are the center of the universe, and the purpose for the creation of the universe.

1. We do not have any evidence for other universes.
2. We do know that life permitting universes would be extremely rare.
3. There are so many requirements and consequences from them that for this universe even to exist stretches the plausibility of it being just the way it is without explanation.

It is because you have no evidence to back your claims. All you use are semantic tricks to make it appear as if you have an argument when you really don't. Notice how the word "appear" is used in context.

Why if there were no design type features that scientists that do not include God explanations that they would not reference those types of features to describe the universe?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It isn't a conclusion. Here you go again with semantics. They say that it appears fine tuned which is not evidence for actual design.

I never claimed they said it was actual design. That the universe has featured that are best explained by appearing designed is not just a insignificant phrase that holds no meaning. The actual fine tuning is real. What we garner from that evidence is being investigated and trying to be explained naturally. However, that doesn't mean that there is a natural explanation either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me ask you, do you think that physicists and astrophysicists are incorrect when they claim the universe is fine tuned and has the appearance of design?

Which physicists and astrophysicists claim that a designer fine tuned our universe?

1. We do not have any evidence for other universes.

Your argument demands that there not be any other universes, or very few of them. Where is that evidence?

2. We do know that life permitting universes would be extremely rare.

Every universe would be rare.

3. There are so many requirements and consequences from them that for this universe even to exist stretches the plausibility of it being just the way it is without explanation.

Again, this requires you to know how many universes there are. It isn't that surprising that someone hits the jackpot in a lottery with a 1 in 150 million chance of winning when there are 200 million tickets sold. You need to back up your claims with real probabilities based on real observatoins.

Why if there were no design type features that scientists that do not include God explanations that they would not reference those types of features to describe the universe?

Why can't you present evidence for God designing?

 

[Loudmouth]

I never claimed they said it was actual design.

Yes, you did. Please stop doing so. When you say that physicists agree that the universe is fine tuned, that is EXACTLY what you are claiming.

That the universe has featured that are best explained by appearing designed is not just a insignificant phrase that holds no meaning.

Please show us scientists who claim this.

The actual fine tuning is real.

And there you go again. You are once again claiming that a designer fine tuned the universe.