Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

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

Scientists do say that it could be different.

 

[bhsmte]

I find it odd that you would not want to investigate why the majority of Physicists say the universe appears designed but you will investigate why people think it is designed. That seems a little off from your normal operation, it seems you are one that wants evidence and the position the physicists take is one based on the evidence they have accumulated to warrant that conclusion. Appearances can be deceiving and that is why they have tests to determine these things.





I beg to differ when you use the sentence below to argue against it.



It is not how they define it, it is a term used to describe it.


I guess you would have to define superficial. It is hardly superficial and if you would investigate it you might find that you change your mind.



Yet you won't research to see the evidence, to see if your conclusion fit with it.

I find it odd that you latch onto a scientist making a statement that the universe "appears" designed, yet, ignore their conclusion as to whether it is actually designed.

Again, I have to go back to the analogy I gave you the other day:

You go to the doctor to have a skin growth examined. The doctor looks at it and states; it doesn't appear or look like a cancerous growth. The doctor sends a tissue sample to a lab, which shows objective results that it is cancerous after all.

Are you going to ignore the lab results and just go with what the doctor stated the growth; "appeared" to look like?

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

So you can't demonstrate your god/s exist and you can't demonstrate our universe was designed, so that leaves you with pretty much nothin.'

Why are you still Christian, again?

 

[bhsmte]

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

Not physically impossible, but psychologically, extremely difficult.

Exposure is at risk, don't want that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I find it odd that you latch onto a scientist making a statement that the universe "appears" designed, yet, ignore their conclusion as to whether it is actually designed.

Again, I have to go back to the analogy I gave you the other day:

You go to the doctor to have a skin growth examined. The doctor looks at it and states; it doesn't appear or look like a cancerous growth. The doctor sends a tissue sample to a lab, which shows objective results that it is cancerous after all.

Are you going to ignore the lab results and just go with what the doctor stated the growth; "appeared" to look like?

If you would only realize that they base their conclusions on the known elements of our universe in regard to intelligent life and conclude that those appear designed. That is what is determined by recognizing what design looks like in our world.

The conclusion that it is not actual design is impossible to know. They may think based on their opinion and worldview that it is not actual but they are not basing that on the evidence because the evidence would tell them that it is designed. They have no evidence prohibiting the appearance as actual and so they are providing their own conclusions to that evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here you go, happy reading.

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

1. Your source is a little on the old side

2. It isn't in absolute support of intelligent design, and as far as fine tuning goes, only states an extremely small number of physics properties don't have wiggle room (this is not a strong position paper. It is a lot like I am, the author has a view, but is noncommittal about it and tip toes around all other views respectfully).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Scientists do say that it could be different.

And I bet some disagree. Remember, not a popularity contest

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Here is a list that do of varying religious persuasions:

Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek

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

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.

This is a question that is different than what Davies and the others are claiming. They are claiming that intelligent life could not exist without certain features of the universe being just as they are.

Paul Davies in the Wiki article has asserted that

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.

Really? Please give quotes where Davies not not agree that the universe appears fine tuned for life.

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

No, that means there are those that disagree with that opinion. That does nothing to the data and what many in the field agree to be fine tuned features in the universe.

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.

Are you calling Davies a liar?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I bet some disagree. Remember, not a popularity contest

Most I would hope would give substantial arguments to their opinions rather than agreeing to agree or to disagree for the heck of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Your source is a little on the old side

2. It isn't in absolute support of intelligent design, and as far as fine tuning goes, only states an extremely small number of physics properties don't have wiggle room (this is not a strong position paper. It is a lot like I am, the author has a view, but is noncommittal about it and tip toes around all other views respectfully).

It isn't suppose to be support at all of intelligent design, in fact, Davies does not believe in ID. Geeze.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you can't demonstrate your god/s exist and you can't demonstrate our universe was designed, so that leaves you with pretty much nothin.'

Why are you still Christian, again?

It doesn't matter why I am a Christian.

I am not trying to demonstrate our universe was designed nor God for that matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It isn't suppose to be support at all of intelligent design, in fact, Davies does not believe in ID. Geeze.

Then why did you post it right after I criticized you for using sources that DON'T AGREE with your position?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not physically impossible, but psychologically, extremely difficult.

Exposure is at risk, don't want that.

Case in point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It doesn't matter why I am a Christian.

I am not trying to demonstrate our universe was designed nor God for that matter.

Then what are you trying to do?

 

[Dizredux]

Are you calling Davies a liar?

Once, you are going off the deep end here. Breathe slowly, shut your eyes and try to relax. This is just a discussion.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why did you post it right after I criticized you for using sources that DON'T AGREE with your position?

The first was God and Science which most certainly agrees with my position as a Christian but that was not the point the point were the parameters.

The second is from Paul Davies which is not an ID proponent and is an agnostic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, you are going off the deep end here. Breathe slowly, shut your eyes and try to relax. This is just a discussion.

Dizredux

Lol, seriously? I just ask you a simple question. Davies said there is a consensus of agreement, you claimed it would be more correct to say there were some who did and some who didn't. So I ask again, do you think Davies is lying?

 

[bhsmte]

Then what are you trying to do?

Scramble.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The first was God and Science which most certainly agrees with my position as a Christian but that was not the point the point were the parameters.

The second is from Paul Davies which is not an ID proponent and is an agnostic.

Yes, one is a biased source, and the other is a source which doesn't agree with your position. You are challenging my patience if you don't see why I have a problem with that.

 

[Dizredux]

Lol, seriously? I just ask you a simple question. Davies said there is a consensus of agreement, you claimed it would be more correct to say there were some who did and some who didn't. So I ask again, do you think Davies is lying?

Sigh, you are responding perhaps too quickly and not reading what is written.

I said that Davies said "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". That is not the same as saying that there is a consensus that the entire universe appears to be designed for life.

You keep insisting that the scientists agree that the "universe" appears to be designed for life. Some do believe this but it looks like many don't and Davies seems to be among them.

You have been catching a lot of heat in the discussion, perhaps you need a short break.

Dizredux