Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Loudmouth]

It has been given to you many times but you don't except the words written by God through godly men as evidence.

No, I don't accept empty claims as evidence. Why is that a problem?

Please present evidence that God wrote the Bible through men.

Barring that, you see the evidence of a creator all around you.

Such as?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The same for the Face on Mars.



The same for the Face on Mars.

False. The face on Mars was just a point in the landscape that viewed at a certain angle looked like a face. There were no measurements that confirmed it was an artifact that was sculpted to look like one. In fact, new pictures have shown it doesn't look like at a face at other angles like it would if it were really a sculpted face.

This is very unlike the precision of the measurements of the elements of fine tuning.

 

[Davian]

It has been given to you many times but you don't except the words written by God through godly men as evidence.

To be clear, you mean words written by men with religious claims. No, that is not evidence.

Barring that, you see the evidence of a creator all around you. Just as you see evidence of man's inventions and creations all around you. Your rebellion is not an excuse for lack of evidence.

By the same authority I can say we see the evidence for universe-creating pixies all around us.

Hence your problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Appears to be designed" is being descriptive, and nothing more, in the absence of something to compare it to.

It describes the issue that many many measurements are necessary for our universe to exist as well as life on earth. It is a description of very precise measurements that are set at exactly the right setting for the existence of the universe and life there. It is not necessary to compare it to anything as we know what is the requirements for this universe to exist and what is necessary for life to exist as we know it.

 

[EternalDragon]

To be clear, you mean words written by men with religious claims. No, that is not evidence.

By the same authority I can say we see the evidence for universe-creating pixies all around us.

Hence your problem.

Yet you are saying that with evolution theory. You just don't seem to realize it.

 

[Davian]

It describes the issue that many many measurements are necessary for our universe to exist as well as life on earth. It is a description of very precise measurements that are set at exactly the right setting for the existence of the universe and life there. It is not necessary to compare it to anything as we know what is the requirements for this universe to exist and what is necessary for life to exist as we know it.

The puddle fits the hole in which it finds itself? Is that your argument?

How did those hole-making pixies know that the hole had to be just so?

 

[Davian]

Yet you are saying that with evolution theory. You just don't seem to realize it.

No, as I am not an advocate for evolutionary theory.

Do you concede that we have as much evidence for universe-creating pixies as we do for deities? Is not that evidence all around us?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The puddle fits the hole in which it finds itself? Is that your argument?

If you are unable to address the complexity of the issue and can only see it as a very simplified version that really is your problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

It describes the issue that many many measurements are necessary for our universe to exist as well as life on earth.

You can pick almost any feature of the universe and make the same argument, that the universe was designed for that exact object.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are unable to address the complexity of the issue and can only see it as a very simplified version that really is your problem.

So says the person who can not even define what design is, nor tell us how it is falsifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. The face on Mars was just a point in the landscape that viewed at a certain angle looked like a face.

And it requires the exact amount of fine tuning that life does.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, as I am not an advocate for evolutionary theory.

Do you concede that we have as much evidence for universe-creating pixies as we do for deities? Is not that evidence all around us?

Do you have an entire history of a culture written by many different people, in different walks of life and professions that speaks about a pixie deity and also written historical evidence of that pixie being born a human and dying on a cross as evidence? That also matches geological and historical evidence for those historic events?

I believe your example is the prime definition of a strawman.

 

[Davian]

If you are unable to address the complexity of the issue and can only see it as a very simplified version that really is your problem.

I do not need to address the entire complexity of the issue; I only need to show where you have failed to support your claims.

The use of tautologies - the anthropic principle - is one such failure. Your problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I do not need to address the entire complexity of the issue; I only need to show where you have failed to support your claims.

The use of tautologies - the anthropic principle - is one such failure. Your problem.

No, you have confused the claim. The claim is the appearance of design which is not a tautology but a scientific fact.

 

[Davian]

Do you have an entire history of a culture written by many different people, in different walks of life and professions that speaks about a pixie deity and also written historical evidence of that pixie being born a human and dying on a cross as evidence? That also matches geological and historical evidence for those historic events?

No, but I could write one. Would that help? Would that make the evidence equal?

I believe your example is the prime definition of a strawman.

In what way did I misrepresent your argument?

Do you concede that we have as much evidence for universe-creating pixies as we do for deities? Is not that evidence all around us?

 

[Davian]

No, you have confused the claim. The claim is the appearance of design which is not a tautology but a scientific fact.

The anthropic principle is a tautology. It is of no use to you.

Demonstrate this "scientific fact" of appearance of design. No opinions, please.

 

[bhsmte]

Define "design" and show how it is falsifiable. Otherwise, your claims mean nothing.

Good luck with that.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you have confused the claim. The claim is the appearance of design which is not a tautology but a scientific fact.

Appearance is completely subjective.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you have confused the claim. The claim is the appearance of design which is not a tautology but a scientific fact.

If it is a scientific fact, it would be falsifiable and defined.

Go ahead and show us this, if you could.

 

[florida2]

It describes the issue that many many measurements are necessary for our universe to exist as well as life on earth. It is a description of very precise measurements that are set at exactly the right setting for the existence of the universe and life there. It is not necessary to compare it to anything as we know what is the requirements for this universe to exist and what is necessary for life to exist as we know it.

The argument makes no sense at all in my mind.

If, as you claim, the measurements were slightly different and there was no life on Earth - so what? We would not be here to discuss it. We may well have evolved on a different planet in a different star system. Does the fact that there is no life on Mars or Venus point to a fine tuned universe? After all, if the measurements were different there may be life there. If the universe didn't exist, again, we would not be around to discuss it.

The measurements are the way they are because they are the way they are. Perhaps we are alive in this universe because it is the only universe we are capable of living in. If your precious measurements were slightly different it's impossible to fully predict exactly how different things would be. Life as we know it on the planet may not have evolved but perhaps life would have evolved in another way.

The argument assumes that life had on evolve on Earth in exactly the way it did.

You talk about 'very precise' measurements. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove...that scientists are good at measuring? Whatever the values were they could be measured very precisely. You could measure the speed of light very precisely and then say 'look, that's very precise - it's been fine tuned'. No, just that scientists can measure very precisely!