Why ... (2)

[Cheeky Monkey]

I am saying that if they were different the universe would not have existed at all.


That is why it is called fine tuning. They have adjusted the numbers even fractionally and it proves fatal for the universe.


I didn't point that out. There is no evidence for other universes, even if there were other universes we could never know.



Fine tuning doesn't go away even with the multiverse hypothesis.

Fine tuning is a probability argument and I'm pointing out that you don't know the denominator so any probability is meaningless.

 

[Davian]

The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor. The three domains are not ancestral to each other. So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about. Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life. So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA.
...

Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God | Francis Collins | Big Think

Francis Collins: "My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined."

Do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?

 

[Oncedeceived]

From what I gather from your posts, you believe everything is evidence for your particular deity.

I know that you think my particular deity is some brand name for a man made belief, but in reality He is God of all. He is your God, you may deny Him but man didn't create Him, He created us. This universe is His. So yes, the universe is evidence of Him. He gives us the ability to see Him in His creation. However, this does not mean that we can't understand what would falsify that premise if it were untrue. If it was proven (irrefutable evidence) that the universe has always existed, if it was proven that every material element could be seen (visible), if it was shown that there was no stretching or expanding of the universe then these could falsify God's creation of the universe.

I said, why did it only arise where where it appears scientifically possible to arise?

It is after the fact. It only appears scientifically possible because it already has happened.

Whatever. Yet another unfalsifiable claim.

I would like to see your falsifiable claim of where mathematics and intelligence arose and what evidence you have to support that claim.

Do you have anything of scientific significance?

I told you that I had evidence (scientific) to support my "claim" you deny it is of any value. So why do you continue to ask for anything? You will just deny anything I would present outright.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God | Francis Collins | Big Think

Francis Collins: "My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined."

Do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?

What has Dr. Collins provided genetically that necessitates anything other than the known three domains of life?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would there be?

Because particles have to interact.

No, I am arguing that if things were changed even a small amount, it would not exist at all.

That is not what the experts are saying that you are quoting. They are saying that we would have a different universe.

In your worldview or mine?

In reality, of which there is only one.

So what ever I might use to support my view with a priori be dismissed by you?

Any empty assertions you use will not be accepted as evidence. Why should it? Why should I accept assertions as evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because particles have to interact.

Very true. However, just because particles interact does not presuppose that they must do so consistently or constantly.

That is not what the experts are saying that you are quoting. They are saying that we would have a different universe.

If several of the changes were made the universe would not exist. In some of them, there would be a different outcome. We are both correct.

In reality, of which there is only one.

The reality stays the same, it is within our positions that the reality takes on differences. The reality shows evolution but it does not show an absolute certainty of unaided unguided processes.

Any empty assertions you use will not be accepted as evidence. Why should it? Why should I accept assertions as evidence?

The evidence stands alone.

 

[Davian]

What has Dr. Collins provided genetically that necessitates anything other than the known three domains of life?

I asked, do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?

You know, this guy:

"Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Before being appointed Director of NIH, Collins led the HGP and other pioneering genomics research initiatives as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of NIH's 27 institutes and centers. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as an innovative gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicineand the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science."

Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JWGU]

I asked, do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?

You know, this guy:

"Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Before being appointed Director of NIH, Collins led the HGP and other pioneering genomics research initiatives as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of NIH's 27 institutes and centers. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as an innovative gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicineand the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science."

Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The example of Collins is particularly striking because (1) he is a devout evangelical Christian, (2) he is in a high post in both government and the scientific world, and (3) he is intimately familiar with the human genome. Among other things, you would think his position would dispel nonsense about scientists discriminating against the religious or the theory of evolution being some sort of atheistic conspiracy. The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science. Evolution is the logical conclusion of all the evidence we have available, and there is not one falsifiable theory I have ever seen or read about that can replace it. Not one. And as far as I can tell, no such theory (that is actually constrained by evidence) has even been proposed by either the intelligent design or the creationist camps.

 

[Davian]

I know that you think my particular deity is some brand name for a man made belief, but in reality He is God of all.

In your opinion.

He is your God, you may deny Him but man didn't create Him, He created us. This universe is His. So yes, the universe is evidence of Him. He gives us the ability to see Him in His creation.

Unfalsifiable claims on top of unfalsifiable claims.

However, this does not mean that we can't understand what would falsify that premise if it were untrue. If it was proven (irrefutable evidence) that the universe has always existed,

Unfalsifiable, as we cannot look back that far back scientifically.

if it was proven that every material element could be seen (visible),

Unfalsifiable, as one cannot prove a negative in this case.

if it was shown that there was no stretching or expanding of the universe then these could falsify God's creation of the universe.

Unfalsifiable, as we have no means of establishing that is what the authors actually meant by that phrase, and you are not just cherry-picking the bible. Are you a floodist? Am I also to provide irrefutable evidence that the global flood did not happen? A literalist? Am I to provide irrefutable evidence that people couldn't live to be hundreds of years old as told in bible stories?

It is still a rabbit hole for you. Cherry-picking bible passages will not validate the bible as a whole.

It is after the fact. It only appears scientifically possible because it already has happened.

The weak anthropic principle. Unfalsifiable, so is no use for you as evidence of design.

I would like to see your falsifiable claim of where mathematics and intelligence arose and what evidence you have to support that claim.

Up to now, I presumed you had a basic understanding of evolutionary theory on these topics. I have no particular claim to make or support.

I told you that I had evidence (scientific) to support my "claim" you deny it is of any value. So why do you continue to ask for anything? You will just deny anything I would present outright.

I continue to ask as you continue to throw out these claims.

As for "denying anything", I have yet to see this testable criteria that you would use to determine that the universe was "designed".

And where is this math you says exists for those probabilities you mentioned for the "fine-tuning" of the universe?

 

[Davian]

The example of Collins is particularly striking because (1) he is a devout evangelical Christian, (2) he is in a high post in both government and the scientific world, and (3) he is intimately familiar with the human genome. Among other things, you would think his position would dispel nonsense about scientists discriminating against the religious or the theory of evolution being some sort of atheistic conspiracy. The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science. Evolution is the logical conclusion of all the evidence we have available, and there is not one falsifiable theory I have ever seen or read about that can replace it. Not one. And as far as I can tell, no such theory (that is actually constrained by evidence) has even been proposed by either the intelligent design or the creationist camps.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science.

QV please:

Question: Since when is the Creation scientific?
...
There is no science involved in the Creation Week --- none whatsoever.

 

[JWGU]

QV please:

I don't think you and I actually disagree (except on the New Testament).

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think you and I actually disagree (except on the New Testament).

In this case anyway.

I've been saying for years that "creation science" and "creation scientist" are contradictions in terms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Very true. However, just because particles interact does not presuppose that they must do so consistently or constantly.

The same particles will not interact differently in one part of the universe compared to another.

If several of the changes were made the universe would not exist. In some of them, there would be a different outcome. We are both correct.

In the universes that are different from ours and that do exist there will be unique features in that universe which only those precise combinations of constants can produce. This will be true of every universe that comes to exist. Pointing to that unique feature in no way indicates that the universe was purposefully tweeked to produce that unique feature.

The reality stays the same, it is within our positions that the reality takes on differences. The reality shows evolution but it does not show an absolute certainty of unaided unguided processes.

Where is the evidence for guided processes?

The evidence stands alone.

You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting beliefs.

 

[EternalDragon]

In the universes that are different from ours and that do exist there will be unique features in that universe which only those precise combinations of constants can produce. This will be true of every universe that comes to exist. Pointing to that unique feature in no way indicates that the universe was purposefully tweeked to produce that unique feature.

Aren't you presenting a belief here too? Or are alternate universes proven and observable?

For that matter all life coming from a common ancestor is presenting a belief as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Aren't you presenting a belief here too?

No, I'm not.

Or are alternate universes proven and observable?

Is God designing universes proven or observable? What evidence is there that God designed anything?

For that matter all life coming from a common ancestor is presenting a belief as well.

No, it is a theory backed by evidence which is not a belief.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Oncedeceived]

The example of Collins is particularly striking because (1) he is a devout evangelical Christian, (2) he is in a high post in both government and the scientific world, and (3) he is intimately familiar with the human genome. Among other things, you would think his position would dispel nonsense about scientists discriminating against the religious or the theory of evolution being some sort of atheistic conspiracy. The reason that creationist science isn't done is not because of some latent hatred towards Christianity, it's because there's no such thing as creationist science. Evolution is the logical conclusion of all the evidence we have available, and there is not one falsifiable theory I have ever seen or read about that can replace it. Not one. And as far as I can tell, no such theory (that is actually constrained by evidence) has even been proposed by either the intelligent design or the creationist camps.

There is only science. The differing branches are called by different names. Those who are doing science with the belief that the Creation Narrative is true do so within the scientific model or at least they should.

I don't think there was a question about evolution in the discussion, as far as whether evolution is factual or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked, do you feel that you have a better grasp of genetics than Dr. Collins?

You know, this guy:

"Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Before being appointed Director of NIH, Collins led the HGP and other pioneering genomics research initiatives as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of NIH's 27 institutes and centers. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as an innovative gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicineand the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science."

Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I asked if Dr. Collins had genetic evidence of anything other than the three domains of life?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aren't you presenting a belief here too? Or are alternate universes proven and observable?

For that matter all life coming from a common ancestor is presenting a belief as well.

There is no way alternate universes can be observed and can not be falsified. Both of which Loudmouth has claimed the only way one can know anything. He believes that only that which can be proven by empirical methodology is to be regarded as proof. However, that seems to only apply to others and not himself.

 

[JWGU]

There is only science. The differing branches are called by different names. Those who are doing science with the belief that the Creation Narrative is true do so within the scientific model or at least they should.

What predictions have they made? What scientific theories have they proposed and what have they validated? Did they predict anything existing theories did not? There is simply no evidence that creation science exists in any meaningful way.

I don't think there was a question about evolution in the discussion, as far as whether evolution is factual or not.

The thread is about evolution, is it not? Unlike the (non)existence of multiple universes, evolution is something we can actually test, falsify, measure, and usefully use to make predictions. It is eminently reasonable and always related back to the real world.

The fine tuning discussion is silly and an example of the problems with unfalsifiable hypotheses. The chief issue is that it is confusing our present model of the universe (which has particular constants that look "fine tuned," though exactly how a constant can be tuned at all, or how we can determine whether the tuning is "fine" without knowing the range of possible values, is a question I have yet to see answered satisfactorily) with the universe itself. Our model may only approximately describe our universe, and if it can be described by a mathematical model at all, I am pretty sure it could provably be represented by a model that made entirely equivalent predictions but did not have any constants that looked fine tuned (there may be some tricky model theoretic proof that you cannot do this but I have not seen one). Who says there's a rule that the laws of physics "have" to be described with simple mathematical laws? Many biological processes (and all of the ones we know about take place in this universe) can't be easily described with simple mathematical laws. Under certain "eventually consistent Turing Machine" models of the universe, it would appear that the real fortuity is that our model is so "easy" to calculate (especially at the limit in Newton's Laws)--but that's not necessary for life, just for rapid technological progress. And maybe even that assumption falls apart if you can use the underlying laws of the universe to compute things (which is sort of what quantum computers are trying to do).

In short--it's the same problem that Pascal's Wager has. People who argue for fine tuning (or against fine tuning and for the multiverse, who are guilty of the same problematic assumption) think they are on safer ground because they have science, and numbers, on their side, and allow for infinite possibilities--but in fact they, like Pascal, are guilty of considering almost none of the universes that we could model mathematically ("almost none" in the rigorous, well-defined sense of "the probability at the limit that an arbitrary system of mathematical laws fits the criteria for what a universe must look like according to them is 0"). Effectively, they might as well posit two--their argument has exactly the same problems. Or (even better) just posit one, the one we can actually observe.