Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[bhsmte]

I never claimed they did.




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.




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).




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

Would you then agree, that since there is no objective evidence of God, that this supports God not existing?

 

[Davian]

Sorry, I did no such thing.

See the "God's Trap which catches the Lies of Evolution" thread. No, I am not reading through that again.

Provide quotes from the physicists and astrophysicists that they claim it is their imagination and seeing bunnies in clouds when they discuss fine tuning of the universe.

Hilarious. That would be the same quotes you have been providing. You just interpret them with that infallible "worldview" of yours, where you cannot be wrong no matter what you read.

Your position is two-fold: it is unfalsifiable, and you demand to be proven wrong. And the funny part is that you don't see what it wrong with that.

 

[Davian]

<looks for substantiation of that comment - as usual, sees none>

Have done so.

<still nothing provided>

I read it. Explain why you feel this means that the universe is not fine tuned for life.

Allusions to how "lucky" we are, countered with this: "Ours isn’t just a randomly hostile universe, it's an actively hostile universe."

 

[Davian]

Rather like having a such a strong desire to deny God one must deny scientific evidence for fine tuning.

You do not know what "tuning" was done, or if "tuning" was possible, do you?

That the constants are constant is not in dispute.

I am glad that this dead horse is beyond feeling pain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

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?

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.

Moving the goalpost.
Now, you speak of the possibility.

Mere "possibilities" are infinite in number.

Here's a question for you:
How do you know the space station is design, but a snow flake isn't?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Ignoring the argument from authority... all you are saying here is "if things would be different, then things would be different".

Well.... big whoop.

This is showing your bias

Says the theist who's desperatly trying to inject his "designer god" into reality and science.

How does the appearance of design support the possibility of no design?

Cloud bunnies.

if there was no appearance it would denote no design was apparent.

Really now? Are you absolutely sure about this?
Are you absolutely certain that people can't show you an example that contradicts this statement?

A picture of for example a landscape that you see as being a natural formation but which really was designed by a big artist for a few hundred thousand bucks?

Here we are at the core of your problem. You fall for appearances. You don't seem to recognise that we humans are a pattern seeking animal which is extremely prone to the well known "type 1 error": the false positive.

We see something, we assert a pattern and then assume we are correct about what the pattern is. While oftenly, there is no pattern at all and it's just us trying to make sense of a choatic world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

See the "God's Trap which catches the Lies of Evolution" thread. No, I am not reading through that again.

Don't expect me to.

Hilarious. That would be the same quotes you have been providing. You just interpret them with that infallible "worldview" of yours, where you cannot be wrong no matter what you read.

Provide the quotes where the scientists claim it is all their imagination and seeing bunnies.

Your position is two-fold: it is unfalsifiable, and you demand to be proven wrong. And the funny part is that you don't see what it wrong with that.

My position is a well substantiated one that the consensus of scientists agree upon.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Originally Posted by Davian

<looks for substantiation of that comment - as usual, sees none>
​

Have done so.
​

<still nothing provided>

I have provided multiple links about the fine tuning of the universe.

I have provided numerous names of scientists that agree that the universe is fine tuned in just the right way for life to exist.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

I read it. Explain why you feel this means that the universe is not fine tuned for life.
​

Allusions to how "lucky" we are, countered with this: "Ours isn’t just a randomly hostile universe, it's an actively hostile universe."

That is going through the issues that were possible that could have prevented life from occurring.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You do not know what "tuning" was done, or if "tuning" was possible, do you?

Scientists say that they know what the consequences would be if they were tuned differently and they do know that they could be different.

That the constants are constant is not in dispute.

Ok. Your point?

I am glad that this dead horse is beyond feeling pain.

Scientists continue to look for explanations for the fine tuning problem and feel that it is a valid question in Science. You have the right to deny that if you wish.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ignoring the argument from authority... all you are saying here is "if things would be different, then things would be different".

Well.... big whoop.

No, what the scientists are saying is that things could have been different and we wouldn't be here to question anything. Of course if you think that life existing is well...big whoop....I guess not being in existence has no value to you. I myself am glad I've been here.

Says the theist who's desperatly trying to inject his "designer god" into reality and science.

No, I feel no desperation. My claim is that the appearance of design is supportive to the possibility of design.

Cloud bunnies.

I clearly doubt that astrophysicists/physicists or cosmologists feel their conclusions are based on something as frivolous as being similar to cloud bunnies especially when they have repeatedly done tests to determine the values in regard to the existence of life here. But hey they aren't here right now to defend their claims so I guess it is a free for all.

Really now? Are you absolutely sure about this?
Are you absolutely certain that people can't show you an example that contradicts this statement?

Scientists at least many of those that claim that the universe appears to be designed do so due to the values and the consequences of them being different and it appears in a way in which it was designed that way. Should it not matter and the values not restricted to such precise values to have life exist it would not appear designed to do so.

A picture of for example a landscape that you see as being a natural formation but which really was designed by a big artist for a few hundred thousand bucks?

Here we are at the core of your problem. You fall for appearances. You don't seem to recognise that we humans are a pattern seeking animal which is extremely prone to the well known "type 1 error": the false positive.

We see something, we assert a pattern and then assume we are correct about what the pattern is. While oftenly, there is no pattern at all and it's just us trying to make sense of a choatic world.

Is knowing the boiling point a pattern? Is knowing the chemical makeup of life a pattern? You are making the mistake of equating appearance of design as a pattern when it is in fact values that are mathematically known and not just that appear to be something they are not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientists say that they know what the consequences would be if they were tuned differently and they do know that they could be different.

False. They most certaintly do NOT KNOW this. They assume / think that they could be different. But they don't KNOW. Because it's essentially UNKNOWN. Why? Because we have no conclusive "theory of everything". We don't have a conclusive theory on the origins of the universe. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity. We don't know.

For all we know, it might turn out that the universe we observe is the only type of universe that can actually exist.
Again: WE DON'T KNOW.


Having corrected your blatant misrepresentation of the scientific understanding of these "constants" and/or "parameters"...

This is again just another variation of "if things were different, then things would be different". Again: big whoop!!

Underneath your entire argument lies an unjustified assumption: that the universe was intended to be the way it is. As if it was planned beforehand that it would be the way it is.

This is an unsupported and unjustified premise on which you are basing your entire argument here. Even the very idea of "fine tuned universe" rests upon that unjustified assumption. It's completely loaded.

It assumes that there was "something" doing the tuning.
It assumes that there was "a plan" for the universe before it existed
It assumes that the universe is the way it is because it was intended to be that way.

You have NO justification at all for these assumptions.
Essentially, it all comes down again to your a priori belief that the universe "was created FOR US". It's the equivalent of a frog sitting next to a random pond and saying to another frog "look at how perfect this pond is for us, surely it was put here so that we can live here".

If you can't see the problem with this way of thinking, then I can't help you. Nobody can. Only you can brake this fallacious pattern of appealing to ignorance, making unjustified assumptions and engaging in teleological fallacies.

Scientists continue to look for explanations for the fine tuning problem and feel that it is a valid question in Science. You have the right to deny that if you wish.

Asking the question "why is the universe the way it is?" is a very valid scientific question.

Asking "why is the universe fine tuned" is an invalid question, because it is loaded. It assumes premises that are not justified.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Moving the goalpost.
Now, you speak of the possibility.

Mere "possibilities" are infinite in number.

Here's a question for you:
How do you know the space station is design, but a snow flake isn't?

'

Science is all about possibilities. There is a hypothesis and the elements are then investigated to determine if it is possible and the data either confirms, supports or falsifies the hypothesis. Sometimes there is no way to determine for sure so the evidence either is supportive of the hypothesis or makes points against it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

'

Science is all about possibilities. There is a hypothesis and the elements are then investigated to determine if it is possible and the data either confirms, supports or falsifies the hypothesis. Sometimes there is no way to determine for sure so the evidence either is supportive of the hypothesis or makes points against it.

Yes, therefore that makes the evidence inconclusive

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, what the scientists are saying is that things could have been different and we wouldn't be here to question anything.

So?
Again, if things would be different, then things would be different...

So what?
If that meteor didn't strike earth 65 million years ago, things would be different as well.

If my friend's parents didn't win the lotterly 20 years ago, things would be different as well..

Again, if things are different then things are different. What is the problem?

Of course if you think that life existing is well...big whoop....I guess not being in existence has no value to you. I myself am glad I've been here.

How is this relevant at all?
If the universe were such that life couldn't exist, well then life couldn't exist.
Yes, I'm glad to be alive. So what? What does that have to do with anything?

No, I feel no desperation.

Your insistene on fallacious reasoning to make this point, even after having been corrected multiple times over the course of at least 6 years (apparantly), suggests the opposite.

My claim is that the appearance of design is supportive to the possibility of design.

And the existence of the universe is supportive to the possibility that reality isn't real and that we live in the Matrix.

Your point?

I clearly doubt that astrophysicists/physicists or cosmologists feel their conclusions are based on something as frivolous as being similar to cloud bunnies especially when they have repeatedly done tests to determine the values in regard to the existence of life here. But hey they aren't here right now to defend their claims so I guess it is a free for all.

The values are what they are and that fact isn't suggestive of anything other then them being what they are.

If I roll a gazillion dice, some result must be the outcome.
Just because we happen to be here to say "ha, look at these values" in no way whatsoever suggests that these values were "planned" or "tuned" or whatever else loaded word you wish to use.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

Most of them don't conclude the universe is actually designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

'

Science is all about possibilities

No, it's not.

Probabilities and plausibilities, perhaps. Possibilities - no.

The idea of the Matrix is "possible". But the idea of the Matrix isn't exactly shaking up the scientific community.

There is a hypothesis and the elements are then investigated to determine if it is possible and the data either confirms, supports or falsifies the hypothesis. Sometimes there is no way to determine for sure so the evidence either is supportive of the hypothesis or makes points against it.

Please provide the way to verify or test that the values of the cosmological constants / parameters were planned before the universe existed and that an agent exists that actually did this planning and/or had this intention.

Because if you wish to call it "tuned", then you imply planning and intent through some kind of agency.


The universe requires an explanation and cosmologists (among others) work on that question.
You.... all you have is a loaded proposition based on bronze-age religion.

 

[bhsmte]

Most of them don't conclude the universe is actually designed.

Clearly, this does not matter to her.

Strong enough defense mechanisms, come in handy at times like this.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is such a bad argument. Sure there could be billions upon billions of universes both failed and successful but very rare would be the one like ours.

Rare is all you need. No fine tuning needed.

I am not making any assumptions, I am just presenting what physicists are claiming about our universe.

No you aren't.

"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies, "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it"
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Loudmouth]

10 to the 500 power.

Backed by what science?

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

Twisting is all you do. You try to claim that you have support, and then say you have no evidence when pressed. That is twisting.

I gave you the link.


I gave you the link.

Then we can safely toss out those papers because even you are unwilling to discuss them.

Projecting.

Says the person who won't even discuss the science.

 

[Loudmouth]

IF you have an issue with the fine tuning of the universe take it up with the physicists that investigated it.

You first.

"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies