Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

Something can appear designed and yet be naturally occuring. Likewise, something can appear absolutely random and yet be designed. How something appears to you or anyone else just at a glance tells you pretty much nothing about the depth of that item in question. Those physicists you keep citing as stating that the universe appears designed usually conclude that the universe isn't designed. The fact that their conclusion doesn't match with the surface observation should be all you need to understand why the appearance or lack of appearance of design is irrelevant in making any supported conclusions on the matter.

So stop mentioning how you think the universe appears and find some real evidence instead.

This is addressed in other posts.

 

[RichardParker]

Well, Krauss certainly made himself a laughingstock with his 'nothing' debacle. Apparently his fortitude isn't quite up to debating his silly (to put it mildly) faith based views.

Well, I'm pretty sure, that Krauss' careere and reputation can survive it when he's a "laughing stock" among creationists and appologetics.
Actually... if I were him, I'd take this as a compliment

 

[RichardParker]

There seems to be a real problem with the word appearance and what that means in regard to the fine tuning problem in astrophysics. There are only a few astrophysicists that deny fine tuning and that the values of the universe are those required for life on earth.

I don't think anybody denies THAT!
Yes, to have life on earth (or to have earth in the first place) the universe can't be any different than what it is now! I agree! No argument there!
I disagree with the assertions that:
1. No other possible configurations could lead to a universe where life or something like life can exist.
2. That there are other ways the universe even could have been, which is important, otherwise you wouldn't need a fine-tuner in the first place.
3. That there is something "special" about this universe just because it has life in it.

The fine-tune-argument depends on all three of them! And none of them can be demonstrated to be valide!
I'm not saying that they are FALSE, I'm saying it's a baseless assertion, that they are valide.

It is not like a few scientists "see" design where others do not.

Ohhh, they most certainly do!
There is NO consensus among the scientists in those fields, that the universe is designed! The people who claim it is are actually a minority!
And this doesn't even depend on your previous argument, with which I disagree!
I could now grant you completly, that not only that we need exactly these parameters of the universe to have life, I grant you that there are literally no other possible ways it could be any different (these points haven't shown to be valide, but who cares... I grant you that just for the sake of it)...
You STILL haven't shown design!
You have shown that the configuration of this universe needs an explanation.
But to show design, you need to show a mechanism by which it was designed. You need to show that the design-process is at least POSSIBLE... let alone probable!
So yes: The people who claim that this universe is "designed", they just see design, where they want!
I'm not saying that there is no design, I'm saying that there is no support to say that it IS designed.

It comes down to the data, what that data means in regard to what we know about the Laws of Physics, the requirements for life to exist and how finely those values are tuned to fit those requirements.

And what life did you use as standard?
Well... this one on earth, right? Because it's the only one we have!
And so we are back to that: Yes, to have earth and life as we know it on earth, we need to have EXACTLY this universe! Big deal!

 

[RichardParker]

Perhaps you should read up on what the astrophysicists as a whole are claiming. This is no leap of assumption but that based on what they are claiming.

And yet, a big part of them disagree with your idea that we have to conclude a designer or fine-tuner...

Isn't that odd?

So, we have two options here:
Either you (and I'm not questioning your credentials, I'm sure you are an absolutly competent cosmologist, who is absolutly competent of interpreting the data) as a single person know better how to interprete the data than the majority of scientists who work in those fields...
Or your somewhat reading stuff into the data that can't be supported.
...
Well... this is difficult.
But you know what? Read your paper on why the current data points to an actual designer and fine tuner, and then, after you've collected your nobel price, you can tell us about it.
...
Or not, because then there is no need anymore to debate this on some forum!

Because let's be honest:
99% of us here are simply not qualified to evaluate the data! We all can pretend all we want, but most of us simply aren't. And we can throw quote(mine)s around all day long...
But the fact is: The scientific community, the professionals who have the qualfications have NOT concluded that we have to look for a designer or fine-tuner! That's just a fact!
Actually, the scientists in these fields belong to the least likely people to actually believe in that stuff! It almost seems, that, if you professionally look at all the data, that apparently points to a designer, design and a fine-tuner, you are less likely to see it.

To me, that's pretty much evidence that people who claim that "our physcial laws point to a god/designer/fine-tuner/magic" don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Reality appears real, which supports that reality is really a simulation from the Matrix.

Realty is that the universe is considered fine tuned for life.

Not really. We probably will never be able to test it directly, but it comes down to models of reality which can be tested in this universe and which are consistent with the attributes of a multi-verse.

You do realize that the fine tuning values of the constants and the consequences of changing them are tested with models in this universe? WE will never observe or test other universes. Multiverse is not considered by many scientists to be a valid scientific hypothesis due to this.

Kind of the same way of how we came to know about atoms and particles.

We know about atoms and particles because we can observe and test our universe.

That is false. And it shows your ignorance on probabilities.

No, it isn't false. It is a statement based on String theorists calculations. I do not have a mathematical background but there have been no refuting the numbers or the premise.

Adding more alternative universes only increases the chances of our universe existing. It doesn't make it "possible". 1 chance in a billion means that statistically, 1 billion trials will result in one success story. It doesn't mean that it will be trial nr one billion that will hit. It could be the first one as well.

Now you are showing your ignorance for astrophysics. That is exactly why the lottery fallacy is faulty, it isn't like the universe could just pop up with the values that we have that permit life without having the same meta-laws for the multiverse system it arises from.

And you seem to continue to assume that it's either "designed" or "multi-verse". As I've suggested couple pages back, what about the possibility that a universe couldn't exist any other way? You seem to like "possibilities". Are we a little biased towards one particular "possibility"? Hmm?

No my options were either natural or design. There could be possibilities that could factor in. It seems I am more open for possibilities as well as realty than you and those who deny what by authority is claimed.

So, you're right - even if you're wrong, ha?
You continue to use those words "fine tuning" and you consistently 'forget' that those words are loaded like a truck.

Fine tuning is not my term, is not a term that Theists came up with but the one that the scientists themselves labeled the phenomena they were finding.

The very idea of "fine tuning" has so many unjustified premises, it's not even funny. It implies intent, agency, purpose, planning, an agent,... Where is your justification for all these premises?

See above. But I can see that you are seeing the implications of fine tuning and how it would support agency, purpose, planning, intent by an intelligent agent. That is why non-religious scientists are striving to eliminate the problem of fine tuning. The fine tuning is real and they must find a naturalistic answer for it.

And to paraphrase Krauss here...

Originally Posted by Lawrence Krauss

Why do you find it so surprising that we find ourselves living in a universe in which we can live?

What would be surprising, is if we would find ouselves in a universe in which we couldn'tlive. In fact, that would be a reasonable premise for a god argument. /trollface
​

This is like: What if you asked why quasars are so bright, and someone answered “Well if they weren't so bright you would not be able to see them.” It explains why we don't see non-life-permitting universes, but doesn't explain why we do observe life-permitting ones. It's not the sort of explanation we are after; we need a causal explanation. Luke Barnes, astrophysicist.

​

 

[Oncedeceived]

I tried that one on Once a few years ago. I don't think she got it. It was too painful to explain it to her, so I dropped it.

Low pain tolerance?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. He means nothing. And he explains very well what he means by that.

Actually he doesn't. He doesn't explain where this nothing which needs the laws of physics to be something come from.

This is the dishonest hypocracy you ALWAYS get from the creationists or the apologists! You NEVER hear ANY of them complaining, when I point to an empty box and say "Look. It's empty. There is nothing in it."
You NEVER hear anybody complain: "Ohhhh, that's not true! There is air in it! And space! And time!"

You know why? Our universe has air in it, it has space, and matter and time. We know that those things came about 10 minus 34 seconds after the Big Bang.

So, on a certain level, even the apologists understand that words (like "nothing") have different meaning depending on how they are used... and YET, when Krauss uses it in a certain way, and even EXPLAINS SPECIFICLY WHAT HE MEANS... it suddenly becomes a problem! Why? Because he disagrees with their favorit fable!
It's dishonest, and it's childish.

You do realize that he has been criticized by atheist physicists...right?

Sure, yeah, why not!
Heck, if you can't deal with the real models, just make [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] up, and then tear down the strawmen, right?

Faulty science is faulty science.

Hey, did you know:
In the theists world, there are pink hippos living on Jupiter! They are the descendants of the galactic space-bunny, who farted the universe into existence! Look how silly the theists are, believing in that nonsense!
...
Sure, this objection wouldn't be honest at all, but who cares about honesty, when you try to attack a position you don't like, right?

Peer reviewed criticism by other scientists seem to agree that it is invalid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, I'm pretty sure, that Krauss' careere and reputation can survive it when he's a "laughing stock" among creationists and appologetics.
Actually... if I were him, I'd take this as a compliment

He isn't getting great reviews from his peers and I think that is where this is coming from not creationists.

He is more concerned with trying to get God out of the equation to think reasonably if you ask me.

 

[Davian]

My point has been that the appearance of design support the possibility of design and has been.

A point that remains unsubstantiated. You have no data to support the possibility that the universe was designed, as you have no access to other universes.

 

[AV1611VET]

A point that remains unsubstantiated. You have no data to support the possibility that the universe was designed, as you have no access to other universes.

Psalm 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Psalm 143:5 I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

Sounds designed to me.

 

[Euler]

Psalm 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Psalm 143:5 I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

Sounds designed to me.

Those aren't data points. They are unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Davian]

Low pain tolerance?

No offense, but it was like hammering into concrete.

You never did grasp the concept.

 

[EternalDragon]

I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?

 

[lasthero]

I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?

We don't know the Earth is the only planet with life on it. We've only examined planets in this solar system, and we're not even 100% sure that they don't have life on them. This solar system is only an infinitely small speck in the universe.

 

[Mainframes]

There are some points to address here:

1) the universe is not set up to ensure life will arise - the parameters are such that life is possible given the right conditions. Given out current knowledge those conditions are fairly tight.

2) why does the universe show design? To prove this you would need to show that without a designer the laws, rules and constants would have been different.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?

That's like me checking under my bed and in my cupboard and concluding that there isn't any coffee on Earth except in the cup on my desk.

Of the hundreds of confirmed planets and probably billions of planets in our galaxy, we've a good look at 8... so I don't think we can really jump to conclusions yet.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is addressed in other posts.

Yes, but for some reason you keep mentioning the appearance of design as if it matters despite this

 

[Loudmouth]

He isn't getting great reviews from his peers and I think that is where this is coming from not creationists.

He is more concerned with trying to get God out of the equation to think reasonably if you ask me.

Why would Krauss have to remove what isn't there?

 

[Loudmouth]

Realty is that the universe is considered fine tuned for life.

The reality is that scientists describe it as an appearance of fine tuning.

You do realize that the fine tuning values of the constants and the consequences of changing them are tested with models in this universe?

Where is your evidence that any designer did the tuning?

When someone wins the lottery, do you consider the results tuned to that winner?

Now you are showing your ignorance for astrophysics. That is exactly why the lottery fallacy is faulty, it isn't like the universe could just pop up with the values that we have that permit life without having the same meta-laws for the multiverse system it arises from.

The same applies to a designer. Where are the meta-laws that created the realm that houses the designer?

No my options were either natural or design. There could be possibilities that could factor in. It seems I am more open for possibilities as well as realty than you and those who deny what by authority is claimed.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that nature couldn't have produced our universe, therefore God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No offense, but it was like hammering into concrete.

You never did grasp the concept.

That is because you haven't grasped the concept of Fine Tuning.