Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

As a believer, you have concluded the universe is designed. You perceive design in and of the universe based on that conclusion. Your perception supports your conclusion.

How circular.

As a non-believer, you have concluded the universe is not designed. You attribute the appearance of design to illusion and based on that your conclusions. Your perception supports your conclusion....how circular.

 

[RichardParker]

As a non-believer, you have concluded the universe is not designed. You attribute the appearance of design to illusion and based on that your conclusions. Your perception supports your conclusion....how circular.

Actually, in my case it's:
I don't know if it is designed, I don't see any reason why somebody would claim it is designed. You claim it is designed. Please provide evidence.
This is not circular. This is simply rejecting an unsuported claim, that hasn't provided any evidence.

 

[Davian]

As a non-believer, you have concluded the universe is not designed. You attribute the appearance of design to illusion and based on that your conclusions. Your perception supports your conclusion....how circular.

Not at all. My conclusions are tentative, based on the evidence at hand, and subject to change with new information. I am not arguing from a position of infallibility.

I do not (nor do you) have access to other universes that would allow me to determine design for this one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, in my case it's:
I don't know if it is designed, I don't see any reason why somebody would claim it is designed. You claim it is designed. Please provide evidence.
This is not circular. This is simply rejecting an unsuported claim, that hasn't provided any evidence.

The evidence is the appearance of design which includes very precise and fixed factors that must be so for our universe or life as we know it to exist. Now conclusions made from that evidence consist of blind luck, some natural law so far unknown, a theory called multiverse (which only pushes the fine tuning farther back) or actual design.

So my claim, which is based on the fact of the appearance of design, is that if the universe was indeed designed it should have the appearance of design. It has the appeance of design, so my conclusion as a theist is supported by the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not at all. My conclusions are tentative, based on the evidence at hand, and subject to change with new information. I am not arguing from a position of infallibility.

I do not (nor do you) have access to other universes that would allow me to determine design for this one.

Fine, that is a valid position for someone to have when no other evidence for an intelligent designer has been given. The only problem with it is that the multiverse explanation just puches the design back farther and does nothing to explain it at all.

 

[Dizredux]

Fine, that is a valid position for someone to have when no other evidence for an intelligent designer has been given. The only problem with it is that the multiverse explanation just puches the design back farther and does nothing to explain it at all.

Someone who knows more about it please correct me if I am in error but as I understand the concept of a multiverse is strictly speculative right now. A very interesting idea but with no empirical evidence right now.

Keep in mind that the appearance of "fine tuning" is not the same as there actually being directed fine tuning. It could be just what some see in the pattern of the universe. It may be just the way God made the universe with no fine tuning necessary. Again I suspect God made us for his universe and not the other way around.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

As a non-believer, you have concluded the universe is not designed. You attribute the appearance of design to illusion and based on that your conclusions. Your perception supports your conclusion....how circular.

I don't know if it is designed or not, but I do reject the idea that this design is an intelligent one

 

[Oncedeceived]

Someone who knows more about it please correct me if I am in error but as I understand the concept of a multiverse is strictly speculative right now. A very interesting idea but with no empirical evidence right now.

Keep in mind that the appearance of "fine tuning" is not the same as there actually being directed fine tuning. It could be just what some see in the pattern of the universe. It may be just the way God made the universe with no fine tuning necessary. Again I suspect God made us for his universe and not the other way around.

Dizredux

What do mean by directed fine tuning?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know if it is designed or not, but I do reject the idea that this design is an intelligent one

Do you know what factors are involved in fine tuning of the universe?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you know what factors are involved in fine tuning of the universe?

I know there are forces in the universe that are completely irrelavent to maintaining life that exist anyways.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know there are forces in the universe that are completely irrelavent to maintaining life that exist anyways.

OK, but that is not what I asked.

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK, but that is not what I asked.

I know the basics of what life as we know it needs to develop and survive, yes. Not all that uncommon actually, despite most of the universe still being inhospitable

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you mean apart from your imagination?
What fine tunes the amount of water that fills a hole in the road? amazingly the designer never seems to overfill them.

The fine tuning is not imaginary. It has been determined by physicists and astrophysicists alike.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know the basics of what life as we know it needs to develop and survive, yes. Not all that uncommon actually, despite most of the universe still being inhospitable

No, I am talking about the extreme precise measurements of everything about the universe.

 

[Davian]

Fine, that is a valid position for someone to have when no other evidence for an intelligent designer has been given. The only problem with it is that the multiverse explanation just puches the design back farther and does nothing to explain it at all.

I am not positing any multiverse concepts.

Do you concede that your reasoning is circular?

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, I am talking about the extreme precise measurements of everything about the universe.

The universe isn't consistent enough to have precise measurements

 

[Davian]

Do you know what factors are involved in fine tuning of the universe?

Tell us about these factors, and what options were available to this "intelligent designer" of yours.

And tell us how you know this.

 

[Davian]

The universe isn't consistent enough to have precise measurements

I believe that Once is referring to the constants that we do observe to be constant to be "fine tuned", but she admittedly cannot show that they were tuned, can be tuned, or could be different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not positing any multiverse concepts.

Do you concede that your reasoning is circular?

I beg to differ, by claiming there are no other universes to compare you by default are claiming the known universe is not sufficient to determine fine tuning and others (which are not in evidence) are needed to do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The universe isn't consistent enough to have precise measurements

That is totally false. It confirms to me that you do not have the perteient facts concerning this area. Perhaps you should read some of Paul Davis articles about it. Look deeply into all the areas of this phenomena.