Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[EternalDragon]

We don't know the Earth is the only planet with life on it. We've only examined planets in this solar system, and we're not even 100% sure that they don't have life on them. This solar system is only an infinitely small speck in the universe.

So the future will be like Star Trek?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You threw away scientific methodology when you made design unfalsifiable. No matter what the evidence is, you will claim that it "supports the possibility of design". Even evidence that exactly matches what we would expect from evolution, you proclaim that it supports design . . . because you say so.

I am not claiming design, I am claiming the appearance of design and that can be falsified.

You think that everything is expected by evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me. You are looking back at what has already happened, and declaring that it was meant to happen that way from the start. That is hindsight bias.

Interesting that you make that claim when in fact, that is exactly what Science does when determining past evolutionary pathways.

Fine tuning means that there is a fine tuner. Where is the evidence for the tuner?

Like I said, Fine tuning is the term used by Scientists to explain the observations of the phenomena involved in our universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If the universe was random and the values that it has happened prior to life existing but was nevertheless necessary for life to exist.

Ponds and puddles aren't random? Are ponds put in place with intent, purpose and agency?

Also, OUR type of life. Other values might be better suited for life. You don't know that. All you have are a priori beliefs and appeals to ignorance.

 

[Smidlee]

Ponds and puddles aren't random? Are ponds put in place with intent, purpose and agency?

.

The fine-tuned ones are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, my argument is based on the scientific data that shows that there are many values in the universe that must be the way they are for life to exist on earth.

Did you expect to find values that made life impossible?

No, it is not like that at all. It is saying that there are values that are measured and those measurements are very precise and required to be that way for life to exist on earth.

Again, did you expect to find values that were not the values required for life to exist?

IT would be more like, the temperature at the north pole is below 32 degrees, there is ice at the north, ice appears when the temperature drops below 32degrees so the appearance of ice necessitates temperatures below 32 degrees.

No poo, Sherlock...

It is the same thing except that the universe having other values would not permit life to exist at all.

Again, so what?

In central Africa, it is warm so there is no ice. So, is the north pole now somehow special, to have ice? Does the north pole "appear to be designed" to hold ice? I bet you don't lose sleep over that question at all.

For the simple reason that you don't consider ice to be objective special and "meant to be there". But you do consider that about yourself. And your religion feeds that a lot. You think humans WERE meant to be there. And that is the only reason why you engage in this teleological fallacy.

You don't really think for good reason that the universe "appears designed". Rather, your world view requires you to believe that.


Saying that life is here because the universe is the way it is, and that life might not be here if the universe were any different, is just stating the obvious.

OFF COURSE the universe is a life-premitting universe. Derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Realty is that the universe is considered fine tuned for life.

By theists. No surprises there. When your belief is that the universe is the result of a planned action by a deity, it's not really surprising if you impose agency, intent and purpose on the universe.

Now you are showing your ignorance for astrophysics. That is exactly why the lottery fallacy is faulty, it isn't like the universe could just pop up with the values that we have that permit life without having the same meta-laws for the multiverse system it arises from.

You don't know this. And neither do astrophysicists.

No my options were either natural or design. There could be possibilities that could factor in. It seems I am more open for possibilities as well as realty than you and those who deny what by authority is claimed.

I'm open to reasonable ideas. I'm not open to an infinity of ideas with no evidence whatsoever.

I'm not open to magic fairies, the matrix or deities.

But I can see that you are seeing the implications of fine tuning and how it would support agency, purpose, planning, intent by an intelligent agent

No, you're again not getting it.

BEFORE you can speak of "fine-tuning", you need to show agency, purpose, planning or intent.

Because that's what tuning means. You can't identify something as "tuned" without having any evidence of tuning. And tuning is exactly the act of planning with intent for a purpose.

Once again so that you really understand it:

Before you can call something "tuned", you need to demonstrate that the thing was planned by an agent with a purpose.

That is why non-religious scientists are striving to eliminate the problem of fine tuning.

No. They are merely trying to understand reality and answer questions.
They are not hunting for an answer before asking the question.

 

[lasthero]

So the future will be like Star Trek?

I can't see the future. Kind of doubt it, but who knows. What does Star Trek have to do with anything?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?

That's a really silly question.
Why should a natural universe have life on every space-rock?

In fact, I'ld actually consider this a point against your position.
Why would a deity create a gigantic universe for the purpose of life on this little insignificant rock, and then stuff the rock as well as the universe with a trillion and one things that can whipe us all from existence in the blink of an eye? From super novae to asteroids to super volcano's.

2 can play that game.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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."

To establish "tuning", you need to provide evidence of the act of "tuning".

Tuning is an act done by an agent with a purpose.

Good luck with that.

Look, it makes utmost sense for a Christian to think that God created the universe and the appearance lends support to that notion.

Yes, exactly. Just like I explained in a previous post. Your a priori beliefs are creating a bias in your entire "tuning" rant. You don't understand that by labeling the universe as "tuned", you are implying a "tuner". You don't feel like you need to support a "tuner", because you believe in a god. That's your bias. You accept this on faith. You already jumped to that conclusion and you already decided that you won't require any evidence for it.

And that is why this thread reads like a broken record.

However, if you want to have an non-theistic natural explanation you will have to show where those meta-laws come from.

But you don't need to show evidence for your faith-based claims, right?
You get a free pass, right?

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.

No. The problem is not assuming no magical genies. The problem is your a priori theistic beliefs for which you feel like you should get a free pass. You feel like you can use your faith based beliefs as valid premises.

We, we are honest enough to say we don't know - we are trying to find out.

You, you have your answer - because you read it in a bronze age book.

We'll make progress.
And you'll sit there, yapping on and on about "fine-tuning".

 

[EternalDragon]

I can't see the future. Kind of doubt it, but who knows. What does Star Trek have to do with anything?

It's a fictional idea.

 

[justlookinla]

To establish "tuning", you need to provide evidence of the act of "tuning".

Tuning is an act done by an agent with a purpose.

Good luck with that.

Of course one would also have to provide evidence that every instance of the appearance of design would be the result of only random, meaningless, mindless and directionless products of naturalistic mechanisms, which would be the product of only a random, meaningless, mindless and directionless mechanisms....which of course would be the result of....

Well, you get the picture.

Yes, exactly. Just like I explained in a previous post. Your a priori beliefs are creating a bias in your entire "tuning" rant. You don't understand that by labeling the universe as "tuned", you are implying a "tuner". You don't feel like you need to support a "tuner", because you believe in a god. That's your bias. You accept this on faith. You already jumped to that conclusion and you already decided that you won't require any evidence for it.

Give evidence of the nothing which produced the something which produced the appearance of design.

Are you making a faith based, supernatural, claim

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh I see. You don't understand the issue and it is evident that many of you don't but you don't care because you all agree and you all agree because you all hold to the non-theistic worldview that God is not real.

It's amazing how you consistently expose the fact that your only/primary motivation for your "tuning" argument is your faith-based beliefs.

You don't care if your arguments are straw men arguments that deny actual scientific data and terms that scientists themselves have labeled the observations.

No scientific data suggests tuning because no scientific data suggests a tuner.

What I realize, and I might add is very evident is that people on here take issue when they use science as their defining authority but then deny the same when it doesn't conform to their own personal beliefs.

The irony meter exploded again.

Isn't that what you all charge creationists with? POT KETTLE BLACK.

It is clearly what you do, yes.
As you have admitted implicitly in the last 3 posts I read from you.

 

[lasthero]

It's a fictional idea.

Yes. Never said it wasn't. What's the point? What does that have to do with what the possibility of life existing in the universe?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course one would also have to provide evidence that every instance of the appearance of design would be the result of only random, meaningless, mindless and directionless products of naturalistic mechanisms, which would be the product of only a random, meaningless, mindless and directionless mechanisms....which of course would be the result of....

Well, you get the picture.



Give evidence of the nothing which produced the something which produced the appearance of design.

Are you making a faith based, supernatural, claim

I'm not making any claims. I'm responding to the claims of oncedeceived.

I don't know where the universe came from. And I'll stick with that honest answer until someone provides a reasonable answer with reasonable evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not making any claims. I'm responding to the claims of oncedeceived.

I don't know where the universe came from. And I'll stick with that honest answer until someone provides a reasonable answer with reasonable evidence.

"I don't know" doesn't dismiss the fact that either the universe, and it's appearance of design is true, thus a designer....or the universe, and it's appearance of design is nothing more than random, mindless, meaningless and directionless naturalistic mechanisms producing a creation which is seemingly designed but isn't.

There is nothing to suggest that only naturalistic mechanisms produced such a incomprehensibly complex and varied creation by random, mindless, meaningless and directionless naturalistic processes. The repeated appearance of design within all of creation does suggest a designer though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ponds and puddles aren't random? Are ponds put in place with intent, purpose and agency?

Water will fit any depression that will hold it. Life as we see could not just fit into the universe in any ol' way.

Also, OUR type of life. Other values might be better suited for life. You don't know that. All you have are a priori beliefs and appeals to ignorance.

IF you wish to call Scientists claims appeals to ignorance that is fine, however, I would think that they might know just a little more than you do about other forms of life possible with different values and they think it is very rare or impossible.

 

[lasthero]

I would think that they might know just a little more than you do about other forms of life possible with different values and they think it is very rare or impossible.

What other forms of life have scientists said were possible?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fine-tuned ones are.

 

[Davian]

You are holding the analogy by the wrong end.

Water will fit any depression that will hold it.

Indeed. Not just any depression, but a depression of certain properties.

Life as we see could not just fit into the universe in any ol' way.

The process of life will begin, thrive, and evolve to fit a universe of certain properties.