Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

lasthero · Oct 19, 2014

It's not just the fine tuning of the universe but we live in a universe of information. Atheist has to continue to completely ignore the huge amount of information found in nature.

What exactly do you mean by 'information'?

Smidlee · Oct 19, 2014

lasthero said:
What exactly do you mean by 'information'?

Any kind of useful data or organization of matter or energy to perform a certain function.
Of the three matter, energy and information; information is the one I have direct "contact" with.

lasthero · Oct 19, 2014

Smidlee said:
Any kind of useful data or organization of matter or energy to perform a certain function.
Of the three matter, energy and information; information is the one I have direct "contact" with.

That's not what information is.

ThinkForYourself · Oct 19, 2014

Smidlee said:
Since fine tuned universe was recently discovered it's far from appeal to ignorance. ...

A universe which was fine tuned by an intelligence has been recently discovered?

I never heard that, which is surprising considering the implications. You would think it would be world wide news, being discussed non stop in every corner of the globe. I would have thought at a minimum someone would have started a thread regarding this discovery.

Could you please provide me with a link to a reputable source. Thanks.

Smidlee · Oct 19, 2014

lasthero said:
That's not what information is.

There are different forms of information.
Second, third, fourth? genetic codes - Edward N. Trifonov on Vimeo

lasthero · Oct 19, 2014

Smidlee said:
There are different forms of information.
Second, third, fourth? genetic codes - Edward N. Trifonov on Vimeo

DNA isn't information.

Dizredux · Oct 19, 2014

Smidlee said:
Any kind of useful data or organization of matter or energy to perform a certain function.
Of the three matter, energy and information; information is the one I have direct "contact" with.

So how do we measure this information to determine if there is less or more?

Without a way to measure it, it has no scientific meaning.

Dizredux

Smidlee · Oct 19, 2014

lasthero said:
DNA isn't information.

He just prove you wrong. Not only it is information he actual cracked one of the codes.

Dizredux said:
So how do we measure this information to determine if there is less or more?

Without a way to measure it, it has no scientific meaning.

Dizredux

Just as the video pointed we can detect information even before cracking a code (which would be required to be able to measure the amount of information) .

Dizredux · Oct 19, 2014

Smidlee said:
He just prove you wrong. Not only it is information he actual cracked one of the codes.

Please give some cites to peer reviewed articles not a video so those who are trained in this can evaluate it.

Dizredux

Smidlee · Oct 19, 2014

Dizredux said:
Please give some cites to peer reviewed articles not a video so those who are trained in this can evaluate it.

Dizredux

This guy broke one of the codes that no one else could break because the information was hidden in what otherwise look like noise. His military training of finding hidden information / codes is what help him to break it.
Thus to the average evolutionist it look like junk/noise but there was a weak signal within.

Peer review is a joke.

justlookinla · Oct 19, 2014

lasthero said:
DNA isn't information.

"DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet

Oncedeceived · Oct 19, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
Appeals to authority aren't going to have any impact on me either.

I must conclude that you then believe what you want to believe and no one no matter what evidence they present will be of no consequence to you. At least your honest and admit that you will only believe what you want to believe. Refreshing but somewhat troubling. :o

Davian · Oct 19, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
I must conclude that you then believe what you want to believe and no one no matter what evidence they present will be of no consequence to you. At least your honest and admit that you will only believe what you want to believe. Refreshing but somewhat troubling. :o

What do you mean, "no matter what evidence they present"?

All you have presented is assertions, opinions, fallacies, and tautologies. Got anything else?

Oncedeceived · Oct 19, 2014

lasthero said:
Can you link me to a scientific paper by any of those scientists that talks about 'fine-tuning'?

[1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life A very good link.

Postscript

Large red letters on Stengers homepage inform us that No reputable physicist or cosmologist has disputed this book. I guess that makes me a disreputable cosmologist. In the meantime, a shortened version of my paper has been accepted for publication by Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. The fate of Stengers paper A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos, submitted to the Journal of Cosmology, is unknown.
In any case, if youd rather decide this issue by a show of hands rather than good arguments, then lets play pick the odd one out of these non-theist scientists.

Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between lifes requirements and natures choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life what we might call a biophilic universe has to be adjusted in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science ﬁction writer, life or intelligence requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it cant exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.
Guess who?: The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of a little well-established physics and cosmology. . . . ome form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose ranges varied over ranges consistent with those models. . My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes.

In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life | Letters to Nature

Oncedeceived · Oct 19, 2014

Davian said:
What do you mean, "matter what evidence they present"?

All you have presented is assertions, opinions, fallacies, and tautologies. Got anything else?

See the information I posted in my last post.

Davian · Oct 19, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
See the information I posted in my last post.

"Wilczek: life appears to depend upon..."

That didn't get far.

Oncedeceived · Oct 19, 2014

Davian said:
It would have to be level, so as not to spill out its contents, non-porous, so as not to leak, and sufficiently large, for starters. Not just any depression would do. A depression without those properties would not find itself with the same puddle, or a puddle at all.

Yes, the only one we know of.

You are marveling at how well the puddle (us) fits the hole (the universe) it finds itself in, then claiming that the hole (the universe) appears designed to fit the puddle (us).

But keep at it. Perhaps in another four or five years tautologies may become evidence.

Astrophysicist Luke Barnes says of the puddle analogy:

If we discovered that any set of constants and initial conditions would permit life, then the puddle analogy would be applicable but since the universe has to be fine-tuned to support life, its quite disanalogous! Any configuration of dirt supports water whereas very, very few configurations of physics can support life. Some skeptical scientists who have studied the fine-tuning explicitly state this analogy doesnt hold water such as David Deutsch.

Oncedeceived · Oct 19, 2014

Davian said:
"Wilczek: life appears to depend upon..."

That didn't get far.

The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between lifes requirements and natures choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.

Emphasis mine.

Davian · Oct 19, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Astrophysicist Luke Barnes says of the puddle analogy:

If we discovered that any set of constants and initial conditions would permit life, then the puddle analogy would be applicable but since the universe has to be fine-tuned to support life, its quite disanalogous! Any configuration of dirt supports water whereas very, very few configurations of physics can support life. Some skeptical scientists who have studied the fine-tuning explicitly state this analogy doesnt hold water such as David Deutsch.

Show how Barnes determined that our universe had to be fine-tuned to support life.

Davian · Oct 19, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between lifes requirements and natures choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.

Emphasis mine.

Coincidence? How many universes were compared in order to make that determination? We only have one, remember?

Have you not covered all of this in the last six years, Once?

Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

fallible

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

fallible

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

fallible

fallible

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency