Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[PsychoSarah]

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.


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.

You. Can. Always. Make. Shallow. Observations. Obviously the universe we live in has physics that allow life to exist, otherwise we wouldn't be debating about fine tuning now would we? Unless you consider fine tuning to mean something that doesn't involve a creator/deity, you cannot claim it is observed, because deities haven't been observed in any reliable fashion.

I hope you are willing to wait decades for that. In any case, it doesn't matter if 0 wiggle room exists, because we don't know if it is even possible for a universe with different physics to exist. I can't show what we don't know. And you can't assume a conclusion with information we don't have. How long do we need to talk about this before you understand that as a species we haven't collected enough information about physics to make any solid statements about fine tuning?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I was talking about ponds and puddles in nature. Not swimming pools or designed ponds in designed gardens. (fyi: frogs can't live in swimming pools).

The picture of the swimming pool destroys the "universe fine tuning" argument, because it shows HOW we know when things are designed and when they aren't.... by contrast.

We have examples of designed puddles and ponds. We can contrast those to natural puddles and ponds. And THAT is how we know which ones are designed and which aren't.

So, where are the other examples of natural and designed universes which we can use in contrast in eachother to determine if this universe is designed?

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.

And you failed miserably without even realising it. In fact, you only dug your own hole a bit deeper.

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

The multi-verse hypothesis is not suggested to "explain away fine-tuning". That's just a creationist/theist strawman.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)"