Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[leroy]

No, you quoted out of context. You claimed that an article was peer reviewed when it was not. You apologize for your endless claims. I made none. I supported my claims when they needed to be supported. If you did not understand the first time that is your problem. But then you have as yet to understand the difference between observations and assertions.

You are accusing me for taking the article out of context, and then you are refusing to support that accusation ………… honestly you are like a child ,

 

[leroy]

T

Heck, the distribution of a single type of genetic marker, like ERV's for example, throughout the collective genome of extant species, already accounts for millions of potential specific predictions. Like: "humans will share more erv's with great apes then any other species". There are millions of species. That's millions of candidates to test to see if they share more erv's with humans then humans do with great apes.

source????????

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, FT means that the universe has many independent “values”, such that if any of them would have been a little bit different life would have not developed.

There is nothing redundant in this definition.

Well, that all depends what you mean:

If you mean that the universe's "values" have to be in the range that supports life in order to have life, then you're still being redundant.

If you've decided that there's some specific range of "values" that would allow life and that everything outside that range would not (and if so, what range have you decided?), then until you actually support your assumption about what range of values is and isn't conducive to life, you're really just jumping to your conclusion.

---

FT is not a tautology because the universe could fail to have the attribute of FT…………..A tautology would be “no matter what the universe is, I will always say its FT”……………….since this is not what I am doing your “tautology” accusation fails…………..but you won’t admit it…

Actually, I think that's precisely what you're doing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did, if you disagree then it is your turn to show how the sources don’t support my claim

Only if you make a claim that is supported by evidence wuld that be the case.

Otherwise observing your errors is more than enough.

see above in this comment.............You said that the sources dont support my claim………….that is an asertion that requires justification………….you can start there

Oh my!! Epic fail. This has been explained to you. Try again.

a summery
...
1 I claimed that Bolzman Brains are statistically more likely to occur by chance… than universes like ours with “normal” observers

Yes, and you could not properly support that claim. By the way, this is an observation of past behavior, I am not going back through endless failures of you again. At best you misunderstood the use of Bolzman<sic> brains to test a hypothesis.

2 you disagreed and asked for sources

Correct.

3 I provided the sources

You provided sources that you did not understand, were not reliable, or did not support you. In other words they all amounted to a big So what? at best which I and others pointed out to you.

4 you said that I took the sources out of context, that they don’t support my claim

Yes, you did that at times.

5 I ask you to support your claim (point 4 above)

And as I said I am not going back over your failed arguments. It is not worth my time.

6 you ran away and invent ridiculous excuses and tactics to avoid supporting your claim

[

No no no, that is not running away. I could just as easily claim that you ran away when you did not acknowledge your failure. Running away is when a specific germane question is not answered without good reason. You have endlessly failed that is a good enough reason not to dig back in your past failures.

My conclusion, you know that I am correct and That I supported my claims correctly, but you wont admit it because admitting mistake is not your style.



.

Oh my! That is some first class delusion there. By the way claiming that someone does not admit mistakes is a personal attack when that person has admitted his mistakes. The problem is that most of my debates are with what are rather low hanging fruit. There are not that many mistakes made when arguing with creationists.

 

[leroy]

Actually, I think that's precisely what you're doing.

Well, no,… at least in theory you can have life and “no-FT”….. a universe with different laws and different constants could have life and be “no-FT”………..is that clear?

 

[Subduction Zone]

source????????

What exactly do you need a source on? It appears that you do not even know what an ERV is. Now this is the sort of claim that you can require a source for. But you need to be specific because it appears you do not even understand the base concept.

 

[leroy]

Yes, you did that at times.

Its very easy to be you………….all you have to do is say “ohhh you took the source out of context” and then relax, because apparently you don’t have to support that accusation

 

[leroy]

What exactly do you need a source on? It appears that you do not even know what an ERV is. Now this is the sort of claim that you can require a source for. But you need to be specific because it appears you do not even understand the base concept.

A source that shows that we share orthologs ERVs with other primates

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its very easy to be you………….all you have to do is say “ohhh you took the source out of context” and then relax, because apparently you don’t have to support that accusation

Nope, not worth my time. If you acknowledged your errors when explained to you then you could make such a demand.

 

[leroy]

Nope, not worth my time. If you acknowledged your errors when explained to you then you could make such a demand.

What error have I made?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its very easy to be you………….all you have to do is say “ohhh you took the source out of context” and then relax, because apparently you don’t have to support that accusation

Again, too late for you to complain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, no,… at least in theory you can have life and “no-FT”….. a universe with different laws and different constants could have life and be “no-FT”………..is that clear?

Seeing how you just spent 49 pages arguing that for our universe to have life, it had to have been "fine tuned," you seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What error have I made?

If you are not going to pay attention why help you? Go back a page and read all of the responses. That is more than good enough for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A source that shows that we share orthologs ERVs with other primates

Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

 

[leroy]

Seeing how you just spent 49 pages arguing that for our universe to have life, it had to have been "fine tuned," you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[leroy]

If you are not going to pay attention why help you? Go back a page and read all of the responses. That is more than good enough for now.

How am I supposed to admit my error if I have no idea what my alleged error is?

 

[leroy]

Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Noooo you are taking the article out of context……it doesn’t support your cliam………………

 

[Subduction Zone]

Noooo you are taking the article out of context……it doesn’t support your cliam………………

Oh my. Just because you fail does not mean you can pretend others fail.

 

[leroy]

Oh my. Just because you fail does not mean you can pretend others fail.

You took the article out of context…. Therefore you failed

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where is the contradiction?

You just said "at least in theory you can have life and “no-FT”." This does mean that fine tuning isn't necessary for life, doesn't it?