Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

A point that remains unsubstantiated. You have no data to support the possibility that the universe was designed, as you have no access to other universes.

The data to support the possibility of design is a well accepted scientific consensus based on the values of this universe and life in it. Your lack of understanding of the fine tuning observations leads you to believe that other universes are needed to make those determinations when they are not.

IF you wish to claim that other universes are needed please support that claim.

 

[Davian]

Psalm 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Psalm 143:5 I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

Sounds designed to me.

Indeed. The bible gives us a very accurate view of the world.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is because you haven't grasped the concept of Fine Tuning.

Baseless assertion.

 

[Loudmouth]

The data to support the possibility of design is a well accepted scientific consensus based on the values of this universe and life in it.

All you have are the devious use of semantics to make it appear as if you have an argument. I know many lawyers that would be jealous of your misdirection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are some points to address here:

1) the universe is not set up to ensure life will arise - the parameters are such that life is possible given the right conditions. Given out current knowledge those conditions are fairly tight.

Not sure of what you mean here.

2) why does the universe show design? To prove this you would need to show that without a designer the laws, rules and constants would have been different.

According to most astrophysicists the universe has an appearance of design due to the many different constants that need to be set almost exactly like they are for life to exist. Meaning that they are "set" or "fixed" to the life permitting values as if they were designed in that way.

My claim which is based on this is that this appearance that the values were set for fixed giving the appearance of a fixer or designer lends support to the possibility of design.

 

[Davian]

The data to support the possibility of design is a well accepted scientific consensus based on the values of this universe and life in it. Your lack of understanding of the fine tuning observations leads you to believe that other universes are needed to make those determinations when they are not.

IF you wish to claim that other universes are needed please support that claim.

You have already conceded that claims of 'design' are unfalsifiable due to the lack of access to other universes.

link

Backpedaling?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but for some reason you keep mentioning the appearance of design as if it matters despite this

What?

I keep mentioning the appearance of design because it is a claim that astrophysicists make. It is baked by data that is scientific rather than philosophical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would Krauss have to remove what isn't there?

Ask him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice drawing.

Haeckel is alive and well on Planet Earth, isn't he?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The reality is that scientists describe it as an appearance of fine tuning.

Ah, so this is where your problem arises. They do not describe fine tuning as an appearance of fine tuning. The fine tuning is established, the appearance of design comes from the fact that these fine tuned values give the appearance of design because they "appear as if someone or something has set or fixed them to permit life to exist."

Where is your evidence that any designer did the tuning?

I haven't claimed I have anything to show that design is actual.

When someone wins the lottery, do you consider the results tuned to that winner?

What you seem to be mistaken about is that it wouldn't be like someone winning the lottery within billions of tickets but more like this someone winning over 30 times. Once, seems reasonable but if that person wins 30 times there is going to have to be an explanation.

The same applies to a designer. Where are the meta-laws that created the realm that houses the designer?

Look, it makes utmost sense for a Christian to think that God created the universe and the appearance lends support to that notion. However, if you want to have an non-theistic natural explanation you will have to show where those meta-laws come from.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that nature couldn't have produced our universe, therefore God.

Your entire argument rests on misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of what fine tuning is and the assumption of no God. You have to deny the scientific findings to hold your position, I don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nice drawing.

Haeckel is alive and well on Planet Earth, isn't he?

lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

Baseless assertion.

I am basing my assertion on the fact that there is an established finding of fine tuning of the universe which Davian seems not to have grasped.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All you have are the devious use of semantics to make it appear as if you have an argument. I know many lawyers that would be jealous of your misdirection.

The argument comes from scientists that have researched the universe and claimed the fine tuning of it. It is not semantics and your inability to understand that you are not arguing against me personally but very well educated astrophysicists/physicists and cosmologists and they have their data to back them where you just have denial and a non-theist agenda.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have already conceded that claims of 'design' are unfalsifiable due to the lack of access to other universes.

link

Backpedaling?

I am not claiming actual design.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to most astrophysicists the universe has an appearance of design . . .

Just as there is an appearance of a face on Mars. Just as there is an appearance of bunnies in clouds.

Meaning that they are "set" or "fixed" to the life permitting values as if they were designed in that way.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole. The odds of a universe existing that can sustain life is 1 in 1, because it happened.

My claim which is based on this is that this appearance that the values were set for fixed giving the appearance of a fixer or designer lends support to the possibility of design.

Appearance is not support for design, as we have already shown you multiple times.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not claiming actual design.

Every time you say that appearance supports actual design, you are making that claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

The argument comes from scientists that have researched the universe and claimed the fine tuning of it.

Show me one that has evidence that a designer tuned anything.

Otherwise, all you have is the tautological statement that life exists in a universe capable of supporting life.

It is not semantics and your inability to understand that you are not arguing against me personally but very well educated astrophysicists/physicists and cosmologists and they have their data to back them where you just have denial and a non-theist agenda.

They have data to back up that the universe is capable of supporting life, which we already knew. They have no data showing that it had to be fine tuned by a deity in order to be that way.

 

[bhsmte]

Every time you say that appearance supports actual design, you are making that claim.

Once's position is; the appearance of design, supports design and then she goes on to say; I am not claiming the universe is designed.

So, if the appearance of design supports design, wouldn't the absence of verifiable objective evidence of a God, support that there is no God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once's position is; the appearance of design, supports design and then she goes on to say; I am not claiming the universe is designed.

So, if the appearance of design supports design, wouldn't the absence of verifiable objective evidence of a God, support that there is no God?

I am not claiming that there is objective evidence that the universe is designed, I am claiming that the appearance of design supports the notion that it could possibly be designed.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not claiming that there is objective evidence that the universe is designed, I am claiming that the appearance of design supports the notion that it could possibly be designed.

Sure, and I applied your same logic to a God existing.