Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

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

anthropic principle

http://www.thehensonhome.org/anthropic_principle.htm

 

[PsychoSarah]

anthropic principle

So, I got to the point where it states the wiggle room for these first handful of constants. While the source would suggest otherwise, that is actually way more wiggle room than I ever thought possible. Fine tuned my foot, that is a lot of potential variables

 

[SkyWriting]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

Darwinism is not a branch of science.

 

[Shemjaza]

Darwinism is not a branch of science.

Yeah. It's more normally called "biology". Of course the theory of evolution is a major part of it.

 

[Split Rock]

Darwinism is not a branch of science.

That depends on what you guys want to call "Darwinism" today. It seems to vary a lot with you guys. Evolutionary Biology, on the other hand, is a branch of science.

 

[Loudmouth]

My claim is that the universe appears to be designed.

Appearance of design is not evidence nor support for actual design. How many times have we been over this?

 

[Davian]

Appearance of design is not evidence nor support for actual design. How many times have we been over this?

A quick search finds her at this same point back in January of 2008.

There are scientists that claim the universe "looks designed" even though they claim it is not. So how can something look designed in even a scientist's eye yet be considered it is not evidence of design?

I have this feeling that, as weak as her argument is, she is not going to let it go.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have this feeling that, as weak as her argument is, she is not going to let it go.

As long as she can put "support" and "design" in the same sentence, she doesn't seem to care about the twisted logic that it takes to get there.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'll put it this way.

On Christmas, your parents present you with a big box to open.

From all appearances, it would seem to be you have a very large reward ahead of you

Reality: your parents used a box more than 10x as big as necessary to contain the average sized toy within.

If everything was always as it looked on the surface, this story could nevef fit reality. However, my mother would do such things all the time so I couldn't tell what she got me before I opened the containers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance of design is not evidence nor support for actual design. How many times have we been over this?

Why would it not be supportive of actual design? Please explain.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why would it not be supportive of actual design? Please explain.

Because a superficial observation laden with subjectivity has essentially no bearing on understanding reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A quick search finds her at this same point back in January of 2008.



I have this feeling that, as weak as her argument is, she is not going to let it go.

It seems to be an argument that is very strong, there are scientists trying to find an explanation for it. Most if not all are ad hoc explanations that do not refute the fine tuning problem of the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would it not be supportive of actual design? Please explain.

Because "appearance" is not the same as "actual".

And teleological fallacies are not a good way to determine anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, I got to the point where it states the wiggle room for these first handful of constants. While the source would suggest otherwise, that is actually way more wiggle room than I ever thought possible. Fine tuned my foot, that is a lot of potential variables

Really? Most scientists would disagree:

in terms of the tolerance permitted, this example pales into insignificance when we consider the fineness of the tuning of some of the other parameters in nature. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 1016, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 1040 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe: the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life. To use Davies’ illustration, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away.[2] If we find that difficult to imagine, a further illustration suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross may help.[3] Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 1040 that she will.
Although we are now in realms of precision far beyond anything achievable by instrumentation designed by humans, the cosmos still has more stunning surprises in store. It is argued that an alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces by as little as 1 part in 1055 at the Planck time (just 10-43 seconds after the origin of the universe), would have led either to too rapid expansion of the universe with no galaxies forming or to too slow an expansion with consequent rapid collapse.[4]


Extract from ?God?s undertaker: has science buried God?? by John Lennox



For example, take the Cosmological constant. If this constant were changed in its value by just 1 part in 10120 parts, the universe would expand either too rapidly or too slowly. In either case, the universe would be life-prohibiting.
Another example is the mass and energy of the early universe. If it were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 1010123 parts (note that that is 10 to the power of 10 to the 123rd power!), the universe would not be hospitable to life.

 

[Davian]

It seems to be an argument that is very strong, there are scientists trying to find an explanation for it. Most if not all are ad hoc explanations that do not refute the fine tuning problem of the universe.

One cannot refute the unfalsifiable. Your claims of "design" and "tuning" are unfalsifiable.

The horse is dead. Dead. Dead dead dead dead. Please stop beating it. Please.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because "appearance" is not the same as "actual".

And teleological fallacies are not a good way to determine anything.

Do you think that a computer's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that an automobile's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that space station's appearance of design denotes a designer?

If a person from another world found any of these without sign of life or of designers would they just believe it was an appearance rather than actual?

Regardless of what you feel the cause, the appearance of design always supports the possibility of actual design and denying it makes you seem a little irrational.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One cannot refute the unfalsifiable. Your claims of "design" and "tuning" are unfalsifiable.

The horse is dead. Dead. Dead dead dead dead. Please stop beating it. Please.

IF you don't like it, hit ignore.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because a superficial observation laden with subjectivity has essentially no bearing on understanding reality.

Your determination of the fine tuning as being superficial is not valid according to the scientists that have researched it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As long as she can put "support" and "design" in the same sentence, she doesn't seem to care about the twisted logic that it takes to get there.

It is far from twisted and even scientists that do not believe in God feel it is significant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'll put it this way.

On Christmas, your parents present you with a big box to open.

From all appearances, it would seem to be you have a very large reward ahead of you

Reality: your parents used a box more than 10x as big as necessary to contain the average sized toy within.

If everything was always as it looked on the surface, this story could nevef fit reality. However, my mother would do such things all the time so I couldn't tell what she got me before I opened the containers.

The problem is that you are missing the actual premise. We know that that big box really does hold 10x the complexity and incredible values that even the box can't hold.