Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

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

Twist away.

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

It takes evidence to claim other universes. You have none. Yet, even if there were some String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500 needed to explain a universe such as ours.

Every universe would be rare.

Perhaps, but life permitting would be the rarest and would take as I stated above a number of 10 to the power of 500.

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.

See above.

Why can't you present evidence for God designing?

That isn't my claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Twist away.

You are the one using semantics to make it appear as if scientists agree with your claim that a designer fine tuned the universe.

It takes evidence to claim other universes.

It also takes evidene to claim that this is the only universe. You don't have that evidence which is why the whole fine tuning argument falls apart.

Perhaps, but life permitting would be the rarest and would take as I stated above a number of 10 to the power of 500.

Can I please see your math on this one? Please show that there are no other characteristics that would be produced by other universes that are less probable than life.

That isn't my claim.

Hide it under a bushel?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are the one using semantics to make it appear as if scientists agree with your claim that a designer fine tuned the universe.

I never claimed they did.

It also takes evidene to claim that this is the only universe. You don't have that evidence which is why the whole fine tuning argument falls apart.

WE only HAVE EVIDENCE of ONE UNIVERSE. Until there is evidence that there are more then you have no argument against fine tuning. Even then you have to find an argument for why there is fine tuning in the multiverse that causes it to be present in ours.

Can I please see your math on this one? Please show that there are no other characteristics that would be produced by other universes that are less probable than life.

The most commonly quoted number is of the order 10500. See M. Douglas, "The statistics of string / M theory vacua", JHEP 0305, 46 (2003). arXiv:hep-th/0303194; S. Ashok and M. Douglas, "Counting flux vacua", JHEP 0401, 060 (2004).

Hide it under a bushel?

No, my claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never claimed they did.

"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?"--Oncedeceived

Yes, you did.

WE only HAVE EVIDENCE of ONE UNIVERSE.

And no evidence to rule out others. Your entire argument hinges on our universe being the only universe, or one of very few. You don't have that evidence.

Until there is evidence that there are more then you have no argument against fine tuning.

Until you can show that this is the only universe, you have no argument for fine tuning.

Even then you have to find an argument for why there is fine tuning in the multiverse that causes it to be present in ours.

The same way that selling hundreds of millions of Powerball tickets makes a winner very probable.

The most commonly quoted number is of the order 10500. See M. Douglas, "The statistics of string / M theory vacua", JHEP 0305, 46 (2003). arXiv:hep-th/0303194; S. Ashok and M. Douglas, "Counting flux vacua", JHEP 0401, 060 (2004).

10,500? 10,500 of what? What are the units? What are the calculations? What are the assumptions for the calculations?

No, my claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

No, it isn't. You consistently state that it supports design. Period.

 

[selfinflikted]

"Until you can show that this is the only universe, you have no argument for fine tuning.

I could be way off base here, but to me "fine tuning" implies an entity that had to do the tuning. Until evidence of said entity is brought forth, the universe just is.

 

[Loudmouth]

I could be way off base here, but to me "fine tuning" implies an entity that had to do the tuning. Until evidence of said entity is brought forth, the universe just is.

Correct. When people make the fine tuning argument, they use two main assumptions:

1. There are no other universes, or very few.

2. Life was the goal of creating the universe.

Until those assumptions are evidenced, the fine tuning argument is just spinning its wheels.

 

[selfinflikted]

1. There are no other universes, or very few.

Can't really make that argument because we don't know if this universe is the only one, or if there are infinite numbers of universes.

2. Life was the goal of creating the universe.

That seems like a stretch because, as far as we know, Earth is home to the only life. Seems to me that if life was the goal of creating the universe, and since the universe is so BIG, it'd be teeming with life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"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?"--Oncedeceived

Yes, you did.

Appearance of design, not actual. Twist away.

And no evidence to rule out others. Your entire argument hinges on our universe being the only universe, or one of very few. You don't have that evidence.

No, it doesn't. But again, no evidence for others either. We do have evidence for our universe. That is the only evidence so far.

Until you can show that this is the only universe, you have no argument for fine tuning.

If you want to make that claim that is fine but it counters scientists conclusions.

The same way that selling hundreds of millions of Powerball tickets makes a winner very probable.

Nope.

10,500? 10,500 of what? What are the units? What are the calculations? What are the assumptions for the calculations?

The 10 to the 500 power didn't load right. Look it up.

No, it isn't. You consistently state that it supports design. Period.

Yep, I do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could be way off base here, but to me "fine tuning" implies an entity that had to do the tuning. Until evidence of said entity is brought forth, the universe just is.

I don't know if you are aware but the term fine tuning is a scientific term used to describe the precise values of our universe. I don't think that the scientific arena had God in mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct. When people make the fine tuning argument, they use two main assumptions:

1. There are no other universes, or very few.

2. Life was the goal of creating the universe.

Until those assumptions are evidenced, the fine tuning argument is just spinning its wheels.

False in both cases.

 

[Loudmouth]

Appearance of design, not actual. Twist away.

You don't see the "and" in the quote? You listed fine tuning separately from the appearance of design.

No, it doesn't.

Then explain how the fine tuning argument works if there are 10^100 universes and the chances of a universe with life are 1 in 10^50. This would produce 10^50 universes with life just by chance, no fine tuning needed.

If you want to make that claim that is fine but it counters scientists conclusions.

And here we go again with your semantic arguments that scientists conclude that the universe was designed.

The 10 to the 500 power didn't load right. Look it up.

Your claim. You back it up.

What are the units? What are the calculations? What are the assumptions for the calculations?

Yep, I do.

And more dishonest use of semantics.

 

[Loudmouth]

False in both cases.

How is it false?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can't really make that argument because we don't know if this universe is the only one, or if there are infinite numbers of universes.

Exactly.

That seems like a stretch because, as far as we know, Earth is home to the only life. Seems to me that if life was the goal of creating the universe, and since the universe is so BIG, it'd be teeming with life.

Earth is the only known life permitting planet, and the universe to be life permitting is very improbable if not for the fine tuned values that we possess.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How is it false?

1. It doesn't get rid of the fine tuning problem due to the multiverse needing fine tuning for ours to have it.
2. Life is improbable if the constants were not the value they are. That is the only implication being made by scientists.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. It doesn't get rid of the fine tuning problem due to the multiverse needing fine tuning for ours to have it.

It gets rid of the fine tuning in the same way that selling billions of Powerball tickets nearly ensures that there will be a winner without needing to rig the drawing.

2. Life is improbable if the constants were not the value they are. That is the only implication being made by scientists.

The planet Mars would also be improbable if the constants were different. You are making the assumption that life was the goal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Earth is the only known life permitting planet, and the universe to be life permitting is very improbable if not for the fine tuned values that we possess.

Every universe would have features unique to that universe. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, my claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

By universe designing leprechauns, right?

 

[Davian]

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.

Another of your unevidenced claims.

Do you feel that the apparent design of the universe is unfalsifiable?

I do not know what you mean by "apparent" design. As for "design" of the universe, from what you have posted, yes. When you admitted that you lack access to other universes for comparison purposes, you rendered your "design" claim unfalsifiable.

I know the chance of you directly answering a question put to you is near zero, but, tell me, from a scientific point of view, are unfalsifiable claims:
1) significant, or
2) insignificant?

Answer with a 1 or a 2.

 

[Davian]

...

No, my claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

By universe designing leprechauns, right?

Or universe designing pixies.

After all, once (pardon the pun) you have lowered the evidentiary bar so far as to allow gods to climb over, anything is possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't see the "and" in the quote? You listed fine tuning separately from the appearance of design.

What difference does that make?

Then explain how the fine tuning argument works if there are 10^100 universes and the chances of a universe with life are 1 in 10^50. This would produce 10^50 universes with life just by chance, no fine tuning needed.

10 to the 500 power.

And here we go again with your semantic arguments that scientists conclude that the universe was designed.

Twisting my claim is dishonest. Are you sure you want to go there again?

Your claim. You back it up.

I gave you the link.

What are the units? What are the calculations? What are the assumptions for the calculations?

I gave you the link.

And more dishonest use of semantics.

Projecting.