Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Davian]

What do you do Davian? You don't do anything but try fault with others.

Would you like some links that would show that statement to be incorrect?

 

[bhsmte]

Your only point of being here is to make snide remarks about others. Hardly stellar on your part.

I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Calling you out on your less than forthright debate tactics is not something you like to hear, but it doesn't make it go away.

As I stated, from my perspective it is impossible to respect that type of behavior.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Calling you out on your less than forthright debate tactics is not something you like to hear, but it doesn't make it go away.

As I stated, from my perspective it is impossible to respect that type of behavior.

Oh darn, your respect was so important to me too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Would you like some links that would show that statement to be incorrect?

Nah.

 

[Davian]

Nah.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh darn, your respect was so important to me too.

That's peachy, but irrelevant to who I determine deserves respect and any level of credibility.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's peachy, but irrelevant to who I determine deserves respect and any level of credibility.

Who are you? Who are you to determine who should be respected and their level of credibility? Did you self appoint yourself to being the forum judge and jury? Please forgive me for not getting too worked up by your judgement against me. Having someone's respect that I myself have no respect for is hardly something that concerns me. You may hold yourself in high regard but seriously you are no better than anyone else.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which is relevant in what way?

It is relevant in that it increases the probability of life developing with every event that allows for it.

 

[bhsmte]

Who are you? Who are you to determine who should be respected and their level of credibility? Did you self appoint yourself to being the forum judge and jury? Please forgive me for not getting too worked up by your judgement against me. Having someone's respect that I myself have no respect for is hardly something that concerns me. You may hold yourself in high regard but seriously you are no better than anyone else.

Do you not view the actions of others and make your own determination whether those actions deserve respect and or credibility?

Others on this board, make their own decisions on the same, unless they decide to let others determine who has earned respect and or credibility.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by PsychoSarah

The universe isn't consistent enough to have precise measurements
​

Once:

Just for clarity (and I assume you mean Paul Davies), Davies is not a fan of ID and he has his own take on ID and fine tuning.
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did indeed mean Paul Davies, I also pointed out when giving his name that he was not a creationist nor did he believe in ID. So I am not sure why you felt the need to do so?

That is, at least to me, means that he feels fine tuning as not necessarily indicating intelligent design.

Why would he? He is not a believer. My point is not that Davies thinks, believes or promotes ID but that he feels the universe appears designed.

Looking at his Wiki page, the idea of a fine tuned universe does not seem to be one of his major interests so using him as an advocate for fine tuning for life is probably not the best choice.
Paul Davies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So because someone who is a prominent authority in their field does indeed claim that the universe appears designed supporting my claim the universe appears designed doesn't promote or endorse actual design or ID you think he is not the best choice? He is the perfect choice. He has no point to prove as someone who believes in ID, and is a giant in his field.

What we may be looking at is fine tuning "coincidences" where the fine tuning so to speak is just a function of how the universe was set up and we are here to discuss it.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

I cannot see where God had to design the universe where we could easily understand it and it looks very much like he didn't.

I've never made the claim that that God had to do anything. We as believers believe God did what He did. We see what God did. We try to explain how God did it.

 

[Dizredux]

What do mean by directed fine tuning?

If the universe can be seen, for whatever reason, as fine tuned for life but that is just the way it is then there are no theological implications.

If this fine tuning is directed then theological implications apply.

Another possible approach, if appearance of fine tuning is a side effect of the way God worked using natural processes for creation then it would not be evidence for the existence of God but simply part of his creation, no good way to differentiate God's direct work from the natural processes he used.

However one looks at it, the appearance of fine tuning is not evidence for the existence of God. It might be considered as evidence for the *possibility* of a God but far from anything anywhere near conclusive.

While the fine tuning concept is getting a lot of play with the Discovery Institute, I suspect it will fade as an argument in time. Right now all we can say is that some feel the universe looks to be fine tuned but there is no evidence available that shows that appearance to be actual.

Others may feel differently but so far no one has demonstrated that the fine tuning concept has an empirical basis, at least for now. Who knows what may come up in the fullness of time. If this is part of someone's faith then I have no argument with that.

You know, this is rather hard to express well and I may not have done a very good job but for the moment, it is the best I can come up with.


Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

However one looks at it, the appearance of fine tuning is not evidence for the existence of God. It might be considered as evidence for the *possibility* of a God but far from anything anywhere near conclusive.

I agree. The evidence of God is not the fine-tuning of the universe but the fact there are " thinking water puddles" who are aware of the fine tuned universe is the evidence.
A water puddle fitting perfectly in a pothole doesn't point to a creator but a water puddle that is aware it fits perfectly in a pothole does.

 

[RichardParker]

A water puddle fitting perfectly in a pothole doesn't point to a creator but a water puddle that is aware it fits perfectly in a pothole does.

Why?
I mean, I understand that you believe that, but do you have any evidence for that?
After all, I could just as well say "A water puddle fitting perfectly in a pothole doesn't point to the absence of a creator but a water puddle that is aware it fits perfectly in a pothole does."
I mean, it's an equal non-sequitor, so it's equally valide.

 

[Dizredux]

I did indeed mean Paul Davies, I also pointed out when giving his name that he was not a creationist nor did he believe in ID. So I am not sure why you felt the need to do so? Why would he? He is not a believer. My point is not that Davies thinks, believes or promotes ID but that he feels the universe appears designed.

A number of people see the possibility of appearance of design in the universe. Some people see the appearance of Jesus's image in a piece of toast. That something may appear to be designed is a personal subjective conjecture or thought until empirical evidence is brought to bear.

For myself, I also see much in the world that has the appearance that someone designed it but that does not mean that it was. So to continue to bring up Davies as a reference that some people see what might look like design doesn't have a lot of meaning. On reading a little more of Davies, he seems not to be convinced that the appearance of design is real but as he put it (discussing the ideas of Martin Rees in a
Guardian article)

If Rees is right, the impression of design is illusory: our universe has simply hit the jackpot in a gigantic cosmic lottery

Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian

This is kinda like I feel, God allowed us to be a winner in the world environment lottery.

He also says in the last paragraph

If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.

Davies seems to be only supporting that some aspects of the natural world could be seen as having an appearance of design but that is referring to appearance only not much of anything else. You keep bringing someone up who it does not look like would support your arguments on the appearance of design and its meaning.


Once:

So because someone who is a prominent authority in their field does indeed claim that the universe appears designed supporting my claim the universe appears designed doesn't promote or endorse actual design or ID you think he is not the best choice? He is the perfect choice. He has no point to prove as someone who believes in ID, and is a giant in his field. I don't even know what you mean by this. I've never made the claim that that God had to do anything. We as believers believe God did what He did. We see what God did. We try to explain how God did it.

Once, that someone in or out of authority says that some things have an appearance of design has no real impact.In the case of Davies, he carefully moves away of design as a fact so he does not appear to be supportive of your ideas.


Once, again just because someone sees what they feel to be the appearance of design in phenomena means the they feel it to be the appearance of design, nothing else.

Personally I feel that things like dragonflies appear to be designed but if they were individually designed than that would, to me, take away from the grandeur of God. I think God made the universe so that dragonflies could and would exist and I feel this is a much bigger act than just making animals one by one or putting the stars in place in a way that looks designed.

Last point, I do not try to explain how God did what he did. I don't have a clue. I can discuss some of my ideas on how he might have done it but God does what he does and our thoughts don't have a lot of impact as far as I can tell.


Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

Why?
I mean, I understand that you believe that, but do you have any evidence for that?
After all, I could just as well say "A water puddle fitting perfectly in a pothole doesn't point to the absence of a creator but a water puddle that is aware it fits perfectly in a pothole does."
I mean, it's an equal non-sequitor, so it's equally valide.

To a naturalism the laws of nature (matter and energy) is the ultimate truth. The laws themselves can be used to explain why a water puddle fit a hole but doesn't explain why or how a water puddle could/would be aware of this fact. Even (physical) life itself doesn't required this kind of awareness.

 

[RichardParker]

To a naturalism the laws of nature (matter and energy) is the ultimate truth. The laws themselves can be used to explain why a water puddle fit a hole but doesn't explain why or how a water puddle could/would be aware of this fact. Even (physical) life itself doesn't required this kind of awareness.

Right, it doesn't require it. And yet we still have it. Nice thing, that is.
So what? This is not an argument for any god, deity or whatever. The fact that our universe has the laws it has is evidence for the laws it has. And the fact that we have "this kind of awareness" is evidence for "this kind of awareness".
You can't just attach a god there, to explain these things away, without actually making an argument, a case and present some evidence for that.

 

[Smidlee]

Right, it doesn't require it. And yet we still have it. Nice thing, that is.
So what? This is not an argument for any god, deity or whatever. The fact that our universe has the laws it has is evidence for the laws it has. And the fact that we have "this kind of awareness" is evidence for "this kind of awareness".
You can't just attach a god there, to explain these things away, without actually making an argument, a case and present some evidence for that.

In another words , stuff happens. " Awareness" is just something you think just popped into existence. That is worst than magic since at least magic requires a magician.

 

[EternalDragon]

Right, it doesn't require it. And yet we still have it. Nice thing, that is.
So what? This is not an argument for any god, deity or whatever. The fact that our universe has the laws it has is evidence for the laws it has. And the fact that we have "this kind of awareness" is evidence for "this kind of awareness".
You can't just attach a god there, to explain these things away, without actually making an argument, a case and present some evidence for that.

So in your world, how does nothing turn into something that is also very complex and alive?

In your world, why isn't there life on Mars?

In your world, I suppose natural, unguided processes created apes, then they advanced to become more intelligent and then created computers, airplanes and ipods....which started from....nothing or at the least simple cells. That is rather incredible, wouldn't you say? Nature creating ipods.....

 

[Oncedeceived]

A number of people see the possibility of appearance of design in the universe. Some people see the appearance of Jesus's image in a piece of toast. That something may appear to be designed is a personal subjective conjecture or thought until empirical evidence is brought to bear.

I would like you to consider this statement in accordance with someone who has little knowledge of evolution. This statement is like a person who has no knowledge of evolution claiming that evolutionists who claim that life is evolved are just seeing common design and that the patterns that evolutionists are claiming are no more than some people seeing a monkeys face on toast. The empirical evidence of genetics is ignored because they believe that it is only a personal subjective conjecture or thought and the empirical evidence is lacking. That seems to be what you are doing. You are equating seeing faces on toast to very precise and measured parameters within a vast universe that set within the only settings that can evolve life or even create a universe. You are dismissing empirical evidence as simple seeing faces in toast.

For myself, I also see much in the world that has the appearance that someone designed it but that does not mean that it was. So to continue to bring up Davies as a reference that some people see what might look like design doesn't have a lot of meaning. On reading a little more of Davies, he seems not to be convinced that the appearance of design is real but as he put it (discussing the ideas of Martin Rees in a
Guardian article)Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian

Davies holds to his worldview which is that the world is not created by God. That is his subjective opinion based upon his own worldview, however, he admits that it does indeed appear to be designed. I have used his references due to his worldview. IF he were a creationist or ID proponent then whatever he said would be counted as based on his own view that God existed. So when talking to atheists/non-believers they would throw out any person no matter what their credentials if they were believers. Now you want to toss out Davies because he isn't a believer? That makes no sense. He believes the universe appears designed and overwhelmingly so:

[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

Now for someone who does not hold the belief of design as Davies, this is a pretty impressive admission. He may not subjectively hold the opinion that it is actually designed but that is just that...his subjective opinion, but the precision and values are so necessary to the universe and life itself and so many in number that to claim they are there by chance is not even considered a possibility. Davies believes there is some underlying physical law not discovered but that in itself has problems. Regardless, I am not misrepresenting his view and to use him as a reference is totally reasonable and rational and supports my claim.

This is kinda like I feel, God allowed us to be a winner in the world environment lottery.

Well that is all fine and good. You have every right to your opinion as well but base that opinion on the empirical evidence and don't ignore it or simplify it to a pattern or face someone sees on toast or in the clouds as that is the same as a person lacking any education on evolution as ignoring genetics.

He also says in the last paragraph Davies seems to be only supporting that some aspects of the natural world could be seen as having an appearance of design but that is referring to appearance only not much of anything else. You keep bringing someone up who it does not look like would support your arguments on the appearance of design and its meaning.

I don't know where you get that. There are so many values of so many elements that it has been shown to be impossible for all of them to be a coincidence. You again are ignoring scientific evidence and Davies does not do that.

Once: Once, that someone in or out of authority says that some things have an appearance of design has no real impact.In the case of Davies, he carefully moves away of design as a fact so he does not appear to be supportive of your ideas.

He is spot on in supporting my claim. There is appearance of design in the universe. I am not claiming that he supports that it is actually designed and that is not my claim. You seem to have a problem discerning my claim and what I am saying supports it.

Once, again just because someone sees what they feel to be the appearance of design in phenomena means the they feel it to be the appearance of design, nothing else.

Diz, read carefully...appearance is my claim. Not actual design. Appearance of design. Get it? The appearance of design is evidence to support the theists worldview that the universe was indeed Designed. It is objective evidence (that the universe appears designed), the theist who has more evidence to confirm that the appearance of design is indeed designed has objective support of their position.

The appearance of design can subjectively be seen as:
1. Confirmation that the universe was designed.
2. That the appearance of design necessitates an explanation such as:

A. An all encompassing natural theory.
B. Luck
C. Just the way it is. and so forth.

I feel (my subjective opinion) is that the appearance of design is due to its actual design. I base this not only on the empirical evidence that supports design but that I have a personal relationship with the Creator that confirms my position is valid.

So there are subjective opinions like that of Davies that the appearance is not due to actual design which he bases on his lack of evidence of any supernatural being's existence.

The two of us, Davies and I have made subjective opinions about the apparent design of the universe based upon the same objective evidence. He sees the design but denies it is actual due to his worldview and I see the design that he sees and due to my worldview see it as actual.

But do not be under the false assumption that either of us have a way to prove which opinion is correct. He can no better prove that the design he sees in the universe is not from the Creator of the universe than I can prove that it is. However that is not the point. The point that I make is this: it is more parsimonious under the theist's worldview that design is actual than for the atheist's view it is not. How does the atheist explain the apparent design of the universe. It is not cohesive with that worldview but is so in the worldview of the theist.

Personally I feel that things like dragonflies appear to be designed but if they were individually designed than that would, to me, take away from the grandeur of God. I think God made the universe so that dragonflies could and would exist and I feel this is a much bigger act than just making animals one by one or putting the stars in place in a way that looks designed.

You have the right to "feel" anyway you wish. If it takes away from the grandeur of God for you to believe that He created the universe in such a way as to point in His direction, to give us a way to see design to confirm His existence then that is your choice. I feel it is due to His incredible mercy and love that He gives us evidence of His presence in the universe He created.

Last point, I do not try to explain how God did what he did. I don't have a clue. I can discuss some of my ideas on how he might have done it but God does what he does and our thoughts don't have a lot of impact as far as I can tell.

I can not argue with that, I can however disagree with your position that the appearance of design is not supportive of actual design.

Just a few thoughts of my own.

 

[Davian]

...
Diz, read carefully...appearance is my claim. Not actual design. Appearance of design. Get it? The appearance of design is evidence to support the theists worldview that the universe was indeed Designed. It is objective evidence (that the universe appears designed),

Objective? How so? How do you quantify or measure this 'design', particularly in the absence of other universes with which to compare?

the theist who has more evidence to confirm that the appearance of design is indeed designed has objective support of their position.

What is this objective evidence that you speak of?