Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Are you claiming due to them being constant that that is my claim?

 

[Davian]

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.

Do you concede that your reasoning is circular?

 

[Davian]

Are you claiming due to them being constant that that is my claim?

Are you not sure of what you are claiming?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you not sure of what you are claiming?

I am trying to determine what you think my claim is.

 

[bhsmte]

I am trying to determine what you think my claim is.

Easy fix, clarify your claim for us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Easy fix, clarify your claim for us.

I need to determine what Davian thinks it is.

 

[bhsmte]

I need to determine what Davian thinks it is.

Your claim depends on what Davian thinks?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your claim depends on what Davian thinks?

Are you trying to be obtuse?

 

[Davian]

I am trying to determine what you think my claim is.

Why do you need to do that? Have I said something not applicable to your posts? Are you not sure of what you are claiming?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you need to do that? Have I said something not applicable to your posts? Are you not sure of what you are claiming?

Do you have some problem articulating what you think my claim is?

 

[Davian]

Do you have some problem articulating what you think my claim is?

No, as I did it earlier in this thread.

Shall we do a count of how many questions have been asked of you since you last directly answered one?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, as I did it earlier in this thread.

Shall we do a count of how many questions have been asked of you since you last directly answered one?

I have responded to all but one. The one is outstanding until you answer mine.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Two words, black holes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Two words, black holes.

. Irrelevant

 

[Davian]

No, as I did it earlier in this thread.

Shall we do a count of how many questions have been asked of you since you last directly answered one?

I have responded to all but one. The one is outstanding until you answer mine.

I said "directly answered". The count rises.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said "directly answered". The count rises.

Clearly you don't want to answer mine, which in turn would make it easier to answer yours.

 

[PsychoSarah]

. Irrelevant

Claiming a component of the universe that doesn't fit with your ideal intelligent design as irrelevant is not sound. Black holes, in all their physics weirdness, are important in our universe for a variety of reasons.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Claiming a component of the universe that doesn't fit with your ideal intelligent design as irrelevant is not sound. Black holes, in all their physics weirdness, are important in our universe for a variety of reasons.

Indeed, there are many components of our universe that are irrelevant to the issue of FT, you simply are not understanding what the fine tuning argument consists of.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Indeed, there are many components of our universe that are irrelevant to the issue of FT, you simply are not understanding what the fine tuning argument consists of.

Then enlighten me

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then enlighten me

Sarah, it is a very detailed and immense amount of information. Please take it upon yourself to research it.

I am not near my computer so I can't give you links right now. Sorry.