Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[justlookinla]

Coincidence? How many universes were compared in order to make that determination? We only have one, remember?

Have you not covered all of this in the last six years, Once?

Are you making these comments consciously or subconsciously?

 

[Davian]

Are you making these comments consciously or subconsciously?

Can you not contain your derail to one thread?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show how Barnes determined that our universe had to be fine-tuned to support life.

Read the link I provided.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you making these comments consciously or subconsciously?

Hummm, good question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Coincidence? How many universes were compared in order to make that determination? We only have one, remember?

Have you not covered all of this in the last six years, Once?

Science marches on and more and more is found to substantiate Fine Tuning.

 

[Davian]

Read the link I provided.

I did. It was not provided. It never is.

 

[Davian]

Are you making these comments consciously or subconsciously?

Hummm, good question.

Ask me again in six years, after I have been hammering on the same subject all that time, without success.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I did. It was not provided. It never is.

Yes it was...here it is again for your convenience. [1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is just showing the lack of understanding of what fine tuning observation is about.

My point was that superficial appearances can be decieving. Is the image a duck? A rabbit? Both? Neither? You'd never be sure with just a glance, and even if you got in depth with it, you still probably couldn't form a truly solid conclusion on the matter.

 

[Davian]

Yes it was...here it is again for your convenience. [1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

From the conclusion:

"What if, when we really understand the laws of nature, we will realise that they could not have been different? We must be clear about the claim being made. "

This is what I have been saying. This paper does not support your opinion like you think it does.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My point was that superficial appearances can be decieving. Is the image a duck? A rabbit? Both? Neither? You'd never be sure with just a glance, and even if you got in depth with it, you still probably couldn't form a truly solid conclusion on the matter.

I have no problem with how you are misunderstanding the concept and this confirms it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From the conclusion:

"What if, when we really understand the laws of nature, we will realise that they could not have been different? We must be clear about the claim being made. "

This is what I have been saying. This paper does not support your opinion like you think it does.

No, I think I understand completely what he is saying and it does support my position.

Right now, with what we know there is no reason to believe that they couldn't be different. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the fine tuning we do know of now and even if we come to realize they could not have been different there will still need to be an answer to why.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have no problem with how you are misunderstanding the concept and this confirms it.

No, I understand the concept of fine tuning, I am explaining the flaw in you concluding the universe is fine tuned because it looks like it possibly could be to you.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Yes it was...here it is again for your convenience. [1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Thanks for the link to the article Oncedeceived. I think people might also appreciate listening to this interview with Dr. Barnes (he also wrote the article linked to by Oncedeceived), where he talks about fine tuning. It is here. Very informative, this guy really knows his stuff.

My only complaint was that for every question asked, Dr. Barnes started out giving the facts, then gave an opinion which meant an intelligent designer was required, but he never came outt and actually said an intelligent designer was required.

Anyways, this piqued my interest, so I did a bit of research. I found an article about a critique Mr. Barnes did on a book about evolution. From reading the article, I gather one of the main points of the book was to debunk ID. The article is here.

It is interesting to note that the author of the article stated: Despite his (Dr. Barnes) statements being very carefully engineered, he (Dr. Barnes) repeats many classic tactics and tropes of creationists. (Bracketed text mine) Those were my exact feelings after listening to Dr. Barnes interview, ie very carefully engineered statements.

From what I can gather, it seems Dr. Barnes is an ID proponent, and his opinions reflect his beliefs. This is not to say that he does not know his material.

There are other scientists who believe that no intelligent fine tuner is required. Whichever side of the fence you fall on, the interview is well worth a listen.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I understand the concept of fine tuning, I am explaining the flaw in you concluding the universe is fine tuned because it looks like it possibly could be to you.

No I'm sorry but you do not understand because it doesn't look like anything to me. I can't see the values of the universe. The fine tuning is the phenomena that scientists have observed about the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks for the link to the article Oncedeceived. I think people might also appreciate listening to this interview with Dr. Barnes (he also wrote the article linked to by Oncedeceived), where he talks about fine tuning. It is here. Very informative, this guy really knows his stuff.

My only complaint was that for every question asked, Dr. Barnes started out giving the facts, then gave an opinion which meant an intelligent designer was required, but he never came outt and actually said an intelligent designer was required.

Anyways, this piqued my interest, so I did a bit of research. I found an article about a critique Mr. Barnes did on a book about evolution. From reading the article, I gather one of the main points of the book was to debunk ID. The article is here.

It is interesting to note that the author of the article stated: Despite his (Dr. Barnes) statements being very carefully engineered, he (Dr. Barnes) repeats many classic tactics and tropes of creationists. (Bracketed text mine) Those were my exact feelings after listening to Dr. Barnes interview, ie very carefully engineered statements.

From what I can gather, it seems Dr. Barnes is an ID proponent, and his opinions reflect his beliefs. This is not to say that he does not know his material.

There are other scientists who believe that no intelligent fine tuner is required. Whichever side of the fence you fall on, the interview is well worth a listen.

I would like you to post anything that shows that Dr. Barnes supports ID. I don't have any idea what his beliefs in regard to religion are because he always talks about the science of fine tuning and not about his religious beliefs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No I'm sorry but you do not understand because it doesn't look like anything to me. I can't see the values of the universe. The fine tuning is the phenomena that scientists have observed about the universe.

Observed fine tuning? You can't observe that, it is impossible, with no means of understanding exactly how variable a universe can be, and given we don't understand most of physics in general, how can you possibly claim this? For all we know, any universe generated will have the same physics parameters because that is the only viable sort of existence, with countless numbers of failures that just wink out shortly after forming.

Even your source gave many physics properties 5% wiggle room. Physics apparenly has more wiggle room than some political polls. And that is just the supposed physics range for life as we know it, who knows what could exist in different physics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks for the link to the article Oncedeceived. I think people might also appreciate listening to this interview with Dr. Barnes (he also wrote the article linked to by Oncedeceived), where he talks about fine tuning. It is here. Very informative, this guy really knows his stuff.

My only complaint was that for every question asked, Dr. Barnes started out giving the facts, then gave an opinion which meant an intelligent designer was required, but he never came outt and actually said an intelligent designer was required.

Anyways, this piqued my interest, so I did a bit of research. I found an article about a critique Mr. Barnes did on a book about evolution. From reading the article, I gather one of the main points of the book was to debunk ID. The article is here.

It is interesting to note that the author of the article stated: Despite his (Dr. Barnes) statements being very carefully engineered, he (Dr. Barnes) repeats many classic tactics and tropes of creationists. (Bracketed text mine) Those were my exact feelings after listening to Dr. Barnes interview, ie very carefully engineered statements.

From what I can gather, it seems Dr. Barnes is an ID proponent, and his opinions reflect his beliefs. This is not to say that he does not know his material.

There are other scientists who believe that no intelligent fine tuner is required. Whichever side of the fence you fall on, the interview is well worth a listen.

Thank you very much for actually looking at my link and going even further to research it on your own I really appreciate that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Observed fine tuning? You can't observe that, it is impossible, with no means of understanding exactly how variable a universe can be, and given we don't understand most of physics in general, how can you possibly claim this? For all we know, any universe generated will have the same physics parameters because that is the only viable sort of existence, with countless numbers of failures that just wink out shortly after forming

Astrophysicists disagree that you can't observe it and it has been observed for decades.

I am not claiming anything other than what the scientist are claiming that they observe and their calculations on the values of the constants that our universe requires to evolve life.

Even your source gave many physics properties 5% wiggle room. Physics apparenly has more wiggle room than some political polls. And that is just the supposed physics range for life as we know it, who knows what could exist in different physics.

When you actually research this and find out all the values and all the requirements of life then come back and tell me how much wiggle room is in most of those values. Support your conclusions with scientific calculations and quotes from those who have been trained and actually are educated in the field.

 

[Davian]

No, I think I understand completely what he is saying and it does support my position.

Right now, with what we know there is no reason to believe that they couldn't be different. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the fine tuning we do know of now and even if we come to realize they could not have been different there will still need to be an answer to why.

No, we don't need an answer. I don't.

From what I understand of "your position", it is unfalsifiable. Everything supports it. Add to that your feeling of infallibility, confirmation bias, and you can make that document yours.

But yet, after six years, you get so little traction with your claims. Do you stop to wonder why?