Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

Did you expect to find values that made life impossible?

Again, did you expect to find values that were not the values required for life to exist?

The issue is we didn't expect the incredibly tuned values that life required to exist. Life exists, that doesn't predict that the values be so precise and necessary for it.

No poo, Sherlock...

I take it you don't get it.

Again, so what?

In central Africa, it is warm so there is no ice. So, is the north pole now somehow special, to have ice? Does the north pole "appear to be designed" to hold ice? I bet you don't lose sleep over that question at all.

Yep, you don't get it.

For the simple reason that you don't consider ice to be objective special and "meant to be there". But you do consider that about yourself. And your religion feeds that a lot. You think humans WERE meant to be there. And that is the only reason why you engage in this teleological fallacy.

The fine tuning observation is a scientific observation not a religious one. The problem is that the fine tuning (a scientific term not religious one) needs an explanation. It is either design or natural phenomena. It is more cohesive within a Theological answer than a natural one in my opinion.

You don't really think for good reason that the universe "appears designed". Rather, your world view requires you to believe that.

This is not an observation that I personally have made. This is an observation that well educated and experienced Scientists have made.

Saying that life is here because the universe is the way it is, and that life might not be here if the universe were any different, is just stating the obvious.

It is only obvious if you look at the surface of the issue.

OFF COURSE the universe is a life-premitting universe. Derp.

Of course it is, how it came to be is the issue.

 

[lasthero]

Hey, I think you missed this question, Once.

What other forms of life have scientists said were possible?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By theists. No surprises there. When your belief is that the universe is the result of a planned action by a deity, it's not really surprising if you impose agency, intent and purpose on the universe.

No, you are mistaken. Scientists have made the observation and labeled it fine tuning due to the precise values required for life to exist in this universe.

You don't know this. And neither do astrophysicists.

They seem to think they have a pretty good idea and have real examples of what reasons life would not be possible in many many values; the life that could exist is really limited by chemistry. With many of the constants and the differences that could be possible break down and do not have chemistry to allow for any kind of life not just our own.

I'm open to reasonable ideas. I'm not open to an infinity of ideas with no evidence whatsoever.

Ignorance of evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence.

I'm not open to magic fairies, the matrix or deities.

At least you are honest about it.

No, you're again not getting it.

BEFORE you can speak of "fine-tuning", you need to show agency, purpose, planning or intent.

You are not getting it. Fine tuning is not my label. It is the scientific label given the observation.

Because that's what tuning means. You can't identify something as "tuned" without having any evidence of tuning. And tuning is exactly the act of planning with intent for a purpose.

Exactly, and that is why it supports design by the appearance of planning with intent for a purpose.

Once again so that you really understand it:

Before you can call something "tuned", you need to demonstrate that the thing was planned by an agent with a purpose.

Take it up with the scientists that labeled it that.

No. They are merely trying to understand reality and answer questions.
They are not hunting for an answer before asking the question.

Actually there are very vocal atheist scientists that do want to come up with an alternative to eliminate the notion of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To establish "tuning", you need to provide evidence of the act of "tuning".

Tuning is an act done by an agent with a purpose.

Good luck with that.




Yes, exactly. Just like I explained in a previous post. Your a priori beliefs are creating a bias in your entire "tuning" rant. You don't understand that by labeling the universe as "tuned", you are implying a "tuner". You don't feel like you need to support a "tuner", because you believe in a god. That's your bias. You accept this on faith. You already jumped to that conclusion and you already decided that you won't require any evidence for it.

And that is why this thread reads like a broken record.




But you don't need to show evidence for your faith-based claims, right?
You get a free pass, right?



No. The problem is not assuming no magical genies. The problem is your a priori theistic beliefs for which you feel like you should get a free pass. You feel like you can use your faith based beliefs as valid premises.

We, we are honest enough to say we don't know - we are trying to find out.

You, you have your answer - because you read it in a bronze age book.

We'll make progress.
And you'll sit there, yapping on and on about "fine-tuning".

You keep ranting about "my" fine tuning" when it is not a religious term but a scientific one; a scientific observation and not a religious one and you seem compelled to yap yourself about the issue without any apparent understanding of even what it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's amazing how you consistently expose the fact that your only/primary motivation for your "tuning" argument is your faith-based beliefs.

No scientific data suggests tuning because no scientific data suggests a tuner.

The irony meter exploded again.

It is clearly what you do, yes.
As you have admitted implicitly in the last 3 posts I read from you.

See my last post.

 

[lasthero]

Take it up with the scientists that labeled it that.

Can you link me to a scientific paper by any of those scientists that talks about 'fine-tuning'?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What other forms of life have scientists said were possible?

I don't have time right now but I will look up a few of my links about the problems with life forms if the constants held different values. The big one is that with many of the changes either the universe doesn't exist or chemistry is eliminated which would by apparent reasoning no life whatsoever could exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are holding the analogy by the wrong end.

Indeed. Not just any depression, but a depression of certain properties.

What precise properties must the depression have?

The process of life will begin, thrive, and evolve to fit a universe of certain properties.

Ours.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you link me to a scientific paper by any of those scientists that talks about 'fine-tuning'?

I would be glad to. It is late here and I am headed to bed so I will do so tomorrow.

 

[lasthero]

I don't have time right now but I will look up a few of my links about the problems with life forms if the constants held different values. The big one is that with many of the changes either the universe doesn't exist or chemistry is eliminated which would by apparent reasoning no life whatsoever could exist.

And how would scientists determine that it's impossible for any life whatsoever to exist in such states? Do these scientists know all the ways that life can exist?

 

[Smidlee]

And how would scientists determine that it's impossible for any life whatsoever to exist in such states? Do these scientists know all the ways that life can exist?

I have absolute no doubt Life exist outside the universe but the scientist are referring to physical life only. They know the forces has to be just right in order to have even atoms let alone physical life.
Here's is a short simple video dealing with the four forces.
Atoms, Forces, and Stars Pt. 2 - YouTube

 

[DogmaHunter]

"I don't know" doesn't dismiss the fact that either the universe, and it's appearance of design is true, thus a designer....or the universe, and it's appearance of design is nothing more than random, mindless, meaningless and directionless naturalistic mechanisms producing a creation which is seemingly designed but isn't.

There is nothing to suggest that only naturalistic mechanisms produced such a incomprehensibly complex and varied creation by random, mindless, meaningless and directionless naturalistic processes. The repeated appearance of design within all of creation does suggest a designer though.

False dichotomies and appeals to ignorance don't keep me away at night...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Water will fit any depression that will hold it. Life as we see could not just fit into the universe in any ol' way.


IF you wish to call Scientists claims appeals to ignorance that is fine, however, I would think that they might know just a little more than you do about other forms of life possible with different values and they think it is very rare or impossible.

Appeals to authority aren't going to have any impact on me either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You give a thumbs up to a post that actually destroys your argument and you don't even realise it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The issue is we didn't expect the incredibly tuned values that life required to exist. Life exists, that doesn't predict that the values be so precise and necessary for it.



I take it you don't get it.



Yep, you don't get it.


The fine tuning observation is a scientific observation not a religious one. The problem is that the fine tuning (a scientific term not religious one) needs an explanation. It is either design or natural phenomena. It is more cohesive within a Theological answer than a natural one in my opinion.


This is not an observation that I personally have made. This is an observation that well educated and experienced Scientists have made.




It is only obvious if you look at the surface of the issue.


Of course it is, how it came to be is the issue.

For the bazillionth time, you can't observe and conclude tuning without observing the properties of tuning: intent, purpose and a tuner. But you skip all those steps... you rather believe those things by default because of your religious bias.

 

[Smidlee]

You give a thumbs up to a post that actually destroys your argument and you don't even realise it.

You believe this "fine-tuned" pond/puddle of water was random and not put in place with intent, purpose and agency?

I got rid of atheist's straw man (which no one would claim represent something fine tuned) and replace it with a more fine-tuned pond/puddle which would be closer (still falls short) to the fine-tuned argument.

If the fine tuned argument was that weak there wouldn't be the need of multiverse to deal with it.

 

[Davian]

What precise properties must the depression have?

It would have to be level, so as not to spill out its contents, non-porous, so as not to leak, and sufficiently large, for starters. Not just any depression would do. A depression without those properties would not find itself with the same puddle, or a puddle at all.

Ours.

Yes, the only one we know of.

You are marveling at how well the puddle (us) fits the hole (the universe) it finds itself in, then claiming that the hole (the universe) appears designed to fit the puddle (us).

But keep at it. Perhaps in another four or five years tautologies may become evidence.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, here is a simple solution: Boycott everything that has been discovered using the Theory of Evolution.

I believe you can start by boycotting many of new drugs that are used to combat various drug resistant diseases.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You believe this "fine-tuned" pond/puddle of water was random and not put in place with intent, purpose and agency?
...

Of course I don't believe that the universe is fine tuned by an intelligence.

To believe it would be to make an Argument from Ignorance (from Wikipedia):

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

 

[Smidlee]

Of course I don't believe that the universe is fine tuned by an intelligence.

To believe it would be to make an Argument from Ignorance (from Wikipedia):

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

Since fine tuned universe was recently discovered it's far from appeal to ignorance.
There is a huge difference between "appeal to ignorance" and "not letting what I don't know bother what I do know."
Ignorance is not an excuse to disregard what we learned about our universe.

It's not just the fine tuning of the universe but we live in a universe of information. Atheist has to continue to completely ignore the huge amount of information found in nature.