Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Davian]

The first was God and Science which most certainly agrees with my position as a Christian...

No, it doesn't. If that were the case, it would be doubtful that you would try using the opinion of an agnostic atheist as "support" for your opinion. You would use science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Sarah, if something is considered factual then I should be able to show examples from any worldview. Atheist and Christian alike can look at the evidence and see the apparent design and do. That is the whole point. Scientists regardless of their religious biases see the appearance of design in the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it doesn't. If that were the case, it would be doubtful that you would try using the opinion of an agnostic atheist as "support" for your opinion. You would use science.

The science is there, the appearance of design is there and it is there regardless of religious bias.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Scramble.

I am not scrambling at all. My point has been consistent from the beginning.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, if something is considered factual then I should be able to show examples from any worldview. Atheist and Christian alike can look at the evidence and see the apparent design and do. That is the whole point. Scientists regardless of their religious biases see the appearance of design in the universe.

If your position is factual, then you shouldn't have to use sources that disagree with you at all, and should be able to avoid biased sources

 

[Oncedeceived]

If your position is factual, then you shouldn't have to use sources that disagree with you at all, and should be able to avoid biased sources

Ok, the first one had listed scientific evidence for fine tuning. The second one did as well. The evidence can be seen regardless of bias. That is the point. The evidence doesn't disagree with me at all. Scientists of varying religious persuasions see the evidence of fine tuning.

 

[EternalDragon]

If your position is factual, then you shouldn't have to use sources that disagree with you at all, and should be able to avoid biased sources

Sometimes....a lot of times, scientists get one point right and others wrong in the same source. I have also used sources that agree with the biblical history in one point and disagree in another and people try to use that to discredit the parts that agree.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, the first one had listed scientific evidence for fine tuning. The second one did as well. The evidence can be seen regardless of bias. That is the point. The evidence doesn't disagree with me at all. Scientists of varying religious persuasions see the evidence of fine tuning.

Davies doesn't see it, and the other source profits from it. Update your sources

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sometimes....a lot of times, scientists get one point right and others wrong in the same source. I have also used sources that agree with the biblical history in one point and disagree in another and people try to use that to discredit the parts that agree.

It is one thing to do that, and an entirely different thing to use a source that completely opposes your position without even commenting on the source you just posted to put it into a context that supports your position. Yes, you can rework sources that disagree with you into an argument that works with your position, but you have to explain it. You can't just post it as if that source supports you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Davies doesn't see it, and the other source profits from it. Update your sources

What doesn't Davies see? And how does the other profit from it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What doesn't Davies see? And how does the other profit from it?

You yourself have acknowledged that Davies is not a supporter of intelligent design. And I really should not have to explain how an apologist site benefits by supporting intelligent design

 

[Oncedeceived]

You yourself have acknowledged that Davies is not a supporter of intelligent design. And I really should not have to explain how an apologist site benefits by supporting intelligent design

You are testing my patience. Forget actual design, forget ID. All I am claiming is that the universe is fine tuned for life and physicists and other scientists in their fields claim it is too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are testing my patience. Forget actual design, forget ID. All I am claiming is that the universe is fine tuned for life and physicists and other scientists in their fields claim it is too.

In what way is fine tuning not just indirectly referring to ID? So now you are claiming that not only does it appear fine tuned to these people, but in fact they conclude it is?

 

[Davian]

You are testing my patience. Forget actual design, forget ID. All I am claiming is that the universe is fine tuned for life and physicists and other scientists in their fields claim it is too.

To be clear, you claim that the universe is fine tuned for life, and the scientists have concluded that it only looks that way.

You are marveling at how well the hole fits the puddle.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In what way is fine tuning not just indirectly referring to ID? So now you are claiming that not only does it appear fine tuned to these people, but in fact they conclude it is?

Sarah fine tuning is the term that scientists labeled their findings of the features of the universe. I am asking you to look at the issue without bringing God in at all. Either for or against, it doesn't matter to the issue of fine tuning. Fine tuning would be present whether or not we believe it exists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To be clear, you claim that the universe is fine tuned for life, and the scientists have concluded that it only looks that way.

You are marveling at how well the hole fits the puddle.

No, scientists claim that the features of the universe are required to be set the way they are for life on earth to exist. They don't conclude it looks that way, they know that if those features were not set or fixed to the level they are there would be no life on earth as we know it. They then conclude that this fine tuning that they find in the universe that makes life possible appears to be designed for that outcome.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah fine tuning is the term that scientists labeled their findings of the features of the universe. I am asking you to look at the issue without bringing God in at all. Either for or against, it doesn't matter to the issue of fine tuning. Fine tuning would be present whether or not we believe it exists.

Ok, then what about all matters of physics NOT on that list of <40 items? And the ambiguous amount of wiggle room for the ones on it (if it was lower, but how much lower? Even if it literally has to be exact, that should be stated).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, then what about all matters of physics NOT on that list of <40 items? And the ambiguous amount of wiggle room for the ones on it (if it was lower, but how much lower? Even if it literally has to be exact, that should be stated).

I gave a list, look them up. You can look up each one of them to get a detailed account of their fine tuning in the universe.

 

[Davian]

No, scientists claim that the features of the universe are required to be set the way they are for life on earth to exist. They don't conclude it looks that way, they know that if those features were not set or fixed to the level they are there would be no life on earth as we know it. They then conclude that this fine tuning that they find in the universe that makes life possible appears to be designed for that outcome.

I know that is how you interpret their words, in an effort to support your opinion, but you have yet to provide a proper citation for this interpretation. You are not doing science, you are seeing bunnies in clouds, and declaring, "rabbits!".

Now that you have beat this dead horse into the ground for the last year, do you have anything else that "supports" your religious opinions? Your objective morality thread died a quiet death. What's next?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I gave a list, look them up. You can look up each one of them to get a detailed account of their fine tuning in the universe.

You look them up too, if you don't have a source on hand for that you should.