Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[PsychoSarah]

Here is a list of some posted on GodandScience website.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
2. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
3. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
4. mass density of the universe
   if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
   if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
5. velocity of light
   if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
6. age of the universe
   if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
   if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
7. initial uniformity of radiation
   if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
   if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
8. average distance between galaxies
   if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
   if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
9. density of galaxy cluster
   if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
   if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
10. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
11. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
12. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
13. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
14. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
15. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
16. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
17. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
18. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
19. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
20. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
21. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
22. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
23. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
24. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
25. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Ok, I got rid of some of these to simplify things. Btw, all the ones involving radioactive decay rates should just be put down as a general one, seeing as the same physical properties that makes one element decay at a certain rate applies to all elements in a general sense. I do however see some red flags beyond the fact that this is a biased source.

 

[HitchSlap]

My claim is that the universe appears to be designed. I base that on the conclusions of Physicists and other scientists and how they have come to that conclusion.

Ok, give an example of something that is designed and something not designed.

99.9% of physicists and other scientists are also atheist.

 

[Dizredux]

Here is a list of some posted on GodandScience website.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

It strikes me that really all this is saying is that if the universe were different, it wouldn't be the same.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, I got rid of some of these to simplify things. Btw, all the ones involving radioactive decay rates should just be put down as a general one, seeing as the same physical properties that makes one element decay at a certain rate applies to all elements in a general sense. I do however see some red flags beyond the fact that this is a biased source.

Then by all means explain the red flags.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It strikes me that really all this is saying is that if the universe were different, it wouldn't be the same.

Dizredux

What is it is saying is that if it were different we wouldn't be here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then by all means explain the red flags.

For 1, it is never explained WHY changing physics in these ways would have said results. It is in dire need of links. 2, some of these changes don't conclusively result in life being impossible, just life physically as we know it existing at this point in time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, give an example of something that is designed and something not designed.

99.9% of physicists and other scientists are also atheist.

Right, many physicists and other scientists are also atheists but agree that the universe appears designed.

 

[HitchSlap]

What is it is saying is that if it were different we wouldn't be here.

AKA anthropic principle.

Things are as we find them, and they'd be different if they were.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, many physicists and other scientists are also atheists but agree that the universe appears designed.

But obviously, most of those who are atheist if not all of them would additionally state that appearance of design doesn't equate to design. It is a moot point. You might as well be stating "peanut butter is tasty, therefore rabies is deadly"

 

[Oncedeceived]

For 1, it is never explained WHY changing physics in these ways would have said results. It is in dire need of links. 2, some of these changes don't conclusively result in life being impossible, just life physically as we know it existing at this point in time.

1.It does explain what would happen if they were changed. The science behind it is out there if you wish to have that info.

2. The scientists have of course looked into what changes and what type of life might exist when determining these factors. However, we know what it takes for our life forms to exist and what it took for them to exist. Which is the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But obviously, most of those who are atheist if not all of them would additionally state that appearance of design doesn't equate to design. It is a moot point. You might as well be stating "peanut butter is tasty, therefore rabies is deadly"

That is nonsensical. First of all the appearance of design and actual design go together whereas peanut butter has not relationship to rabies. Your arguments are usually more reasonable.

It doesn't matter whether or not they think it is designed because that is not my claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is nonsensical. First of all the appearance of design and actual design go together whereas peanut butter has not relationship to rabies. Your arguments are usually more reasonable.

It doesn't matter whether or not they think it is designed because that is not my claim.

It is entirely relevant whether or not they actually think it is designed. It is far more relevant than what they think the universe looks like!

The nonsensical statement was the point; basically how many and who thinks the universe appears designed has no bearing on whether or not it actually is or even the conclusions made by those who think the universe looks designed. Whenever you bring it up to me, it sounds from my perspective like my peanut butter sentence, and I am in awe of the fact that you retain it makes sense

 

[HitchSlap]

Right, many physicists and other scientists are also atheists but agree that the universe appears designed.

Do you have any universes that are known to be designed so we can compare ours to it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is entirely relevant whether or not they actually think it is designed. It is far more relevant than what they think the universe looks like!

The nonsensical statement was the point; basically how many and who thinks the universe appears designed has no bearing on whether or not it actually is or even the conclusions made by those who think the universe looks designed. Whenever you bring it up to me, it sounds from my perspective like my peanut butter sentence, and I am in awe of the fact that you retain it makes sense

So you think that the Scientists in the fields that have researched this are so nonsensical that they are equating the fine tuning of the universe with peanut butter's taste in relation to rabies?

 

[Dizredux]

Once, you keep asserting that it is the consensus of the astrophysicists and physicists that the universe appears designed.

I decided to look into this a little and picked two, Tyson and Davies. Tyson is well known and you bring Davies up a lot.


Tysen on the question of Does the universe have a purpose?

So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be/

Note the phrase the "universe looks more and more random." He does not seem to be buying into the idea of a fine tuned or designed universe at all.


Paul Davies in the Wiki article has asserted that

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".

Note the phrase "several respects". That is far from stating that the universe appears to be fine tuned for life and in fact Davies does not appear to agree with this and has stated so several times.


So this is enough to falsify the idea that fine tuning or the designed universe is the consensus opinion.

I suspect that the statement that some believe that that the universe seems to appear designed but some don't is probably a much more accurate way of describing the opinions of the field.

Cites
http://www.templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you think that the Scientists in the fields that have researched this are so nonsensical that they are equating the fine tuning of the universe with peanut butter's taste in relation to rabies?

I am stating that their actual conclusions based on that research matter far more than a shallow observation. Whenever you use a source that doesn't support the universe actually being designed even though it mentions the universe could appear that way, that is a red flag. You are giving more relevance to a quick comment than the actual research based conclusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have any universes that are known to be designed so we can compare ours to it?

Again, the scientists conclusions are based on our universe, the fact that it could have been different and the requirements that have to be met for life to exist on this earth.

 

[Davian]

Again, the scientists conclusions are based on our universe, the fact that it could have been different and the requirements that have to be met for life to exist on this earth.

You do not know that it could have been different, do you?

 

[Davian]

Do you have any universes that are known to be designed so we can compare ours to it?

Again, the scientists conclusions are based on our universe, the fact that it could have been different and the requirements that have to be met for life to exist on this earth.

Is it physically impossible for you to provide a direct yes or no answer to a question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am stating that their actual conclusions based on that research matter far more than a shallow observation. Whenever you use a source that doesn't support the universe actually being designed even though it mentions the universe could appear that way, that is a red flag. You are giving more relevance to a quick comment than the actual research based conclusions.

Here you go, happy reading.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403050.pdf