Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

It is not subjetive.

FT simply means that atoms, molecules, stars, planets (and other stuff required for life) can only exist within a narrow range of values on different constants and initial conditions.

For example if gravity would have been 1% stronger, the whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole shortly after the big bang. (therefore no atoms, no molecules, no stars, no planets and therefore no life)

This is 100% objective, one (well scientists) can determine objectively what would happen if gravity would have been stronger, we can determine objectively that atoms, molecules etc. can´t exist in a black hole, and we can determine objectively that we can have life without molecules




That is a good question, but starwman, FT simply means that life permitting values are narrow.

If you want to claim that God doesn’t exist because most of the universe is hostile to life….. go ahead, develop your argument, but this has noting to do with FT and your argument (even if sound) would. Not affect any of the premises of the FT argument

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

As you can note, it doesnt matter if you show that 99.99999% of the universe is hostile to life, ………. None of the premises would be affected.


Ok, so nothing in the FT argument is based on what we feel.

So I would appreciate if you star your post with “yes Leroy you where correct, and I was wrong the FT of the universe is not subjective, but rather an objective property of the universe.

And given that I have my doubts on weather if you understand the argument or not , you have to explain to me the argument with your own words

When I say FT argument I am referring to the version of the argument that William lane Craig proposes…………….. it is perfectly valid to say “ohh no idea Leroy, I have never heard about that argument”

What did I say recently, apologetics is making up answers to support otherwise ridiculous conclusions.
We are here because it is a place that we can exist,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville Already explained to you that “claims” from people that are likely to be well informed count as evidence...............why is he wrong?


A few weeks ago you claimed that you are a father, and everybody grants that “claim” as evidence that you really are a father because in that context you were likely not lying nor mistaken .

In other words given your claim, I am roughly 95% to 99%% sure that you are a father and I would bet my money accordingly…………. Before your claim I would been “agnostic” perhaps yes perhaps no, who knows, I wouldn’t bet

And there is nothing in the definition of evidence (ether your definition or any other definition that I have seen) that excludes “all claims” from being evidnece

No I didn't. I explained that it was a claim and listed supporting evidence for the claim based on your scenario.

Please don't put words in my mouth or erroneously attribute actions to me that are incorrect and that I did not conduct.

 

[YoursTrue]

My goodness -- it's taken you this long to figure that out?

Your mind does not believe there is a God who cares, or perhaps you don't believe in any unseen intelligent force, that's why I mentioned it about you and your mind. Nothing personal, of course. As the saying goes, your book is closed. That book being your mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because fine tuning is a subjective criteria, for example if the universe is so fine tuned, why is it so hostile everywhere except here where we have evolved to exist.

Isn't that a good question? We have different viewpoints, I'm sure. But then you might ask how it is that humans have evolved culturally to the point that (1) they can ruin the earth, and (2) the Doomsday Bulletin is predicting not-so-good things for life on earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

100% non-sequitur. What argument are you trying to make?

sorry you didn't understand it. But that's how it goes sometimes.

 

[Pogo]

Isn't that a good question? We have different viewpoints, I'm sure. But then you might ask how it is that humans have evolved culturally to the point that (1) they can ruin the earth, and (2) the Doomsday Bulletin is predicting not-so-good things for life on earth.

The question was really, can you come up with a non-subjective argument to support your assertion.

 

[YoursTrue]

The question was really, can you come up with a non-subjective argument to support your assertion.

However you view it, evolution maintains that (1) death is the ultimate outcome for humans, and (2) mankind (not chimpanzees) is held to accountability by scientists via the Doomsday Clock that the human race is closer than ever to death by virtual suicide. (Not by "natural selection," or survival of the fittest or chimpanzees, but rather mankind's own doing.)

 

[Pogo]

However you view it, evolution maintains that (1) death is the ultimate outcome for humans, and (2) mankind (not chimpanzees) is held to accountability by scientists via the Doomsday Clock that the human race is closer than ever to death by virtual suicide. (Not by "natural selection," or survival of the fittest or chimpanzees, but rather mankind's own doing.)

1) NO (obvious but not allowed)
2) You think the doomsday clock is related to the Theory of Evolution? rather than the so called biblical characteristics of man? LOL
Please explain coherently.

 

[YoursTrue]

1) NO (obvious but not allowed)
2) You think the doomsday clock is related to the Theory of Evolution? rather than the so called biblical characteristics of man? LOL
Please explain coherently.

have a good evening. LOL, I've already explained it. And you should understand it. If you don't, I think you're blinding yourself. So anyway you take care as you contemplate the future as considered by science eventually or sooner. Have a good one!

 

[Pogo]

have a good evening. LOL, I've already explained it. And you should understand it. If you don't, I think you're blinding yourself. So anyway you take care as you contemplate the future as considered by science eventually or sooner. Have a good one!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That reminds me of this.

These apparent games that seem to make up the bulk of the anti-science position on the threads has become very disappointing.

 

[F1fan]

This is way off topic form the OP

That didn't stop you from offering your non-rational, and non-expert opinions about the Big Bang. Only once you are trapped do you care about the topic of evolution, which you also offer your non-rational and non-expert opinions.

I´ll offer you the same thing I offered @It Aint Necessarily So

1 lets make a new thread

2 lets talk about the origin of the universe

My only conditions are

1 you have to define a clear and unabigous position

2 you have to present evidence for that position (íll provide evidence for mine)

3 we can have a nice dialogue and see who has the best evidence

4 with universe I mean “all physical reality” (or the natural world, or the cosmos, or pick any word tat you like ) …….. my point is that I am not limiting the concept of “universe” just to our local bubble.

If you don’t like these conditions then propose something different

Go for it. You will offer your poorly reasoned opinions and you will face the same criticisms. Your views are consistently flawed, and a new thread won't change that trend.

 

[F1fan]

There is good evidence in favor of the existence of God, and zero (or very little) evidence for leprechauns

Notice you offer no evidence for any God, so you're not to be taken seriously.

And look how you keep referring to God all of a sudden now that your real motives have been exposed. We all knew you are a creationist and your posts are proving it. You hid your covert belief in God for quite a while.

This is why I would believe in God and not in leprechauns

And you could be mistaken about a God existing.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion The best piece of evidence that is the fine tuning of the universe.

The fine tuning claim has been debunked, and is a laughable claim by creationists. See, now you are not even trying to conceal your actual creationist assumptions.

 

[leroy]

What did I say recently, apologetics is making up answers to support otherwise ridiculous conclusions.
We are here because it is a place that we can exist,

Maybe but why did you quote my comments if you are not going to address them.?

 

[F1fan]

The earth certainly has the capacity to sustain itself.

Not without the sun.

On the other hand, horrible things happen,

Exactly as your God created.

and some of those are what you might call natural. Not everyone would, but I can see how mutations can cause a baby born with two heads,

Exactly as your God created.

and I can understand how such horrible things as river blindness can occur.

Exactly as your God created.

So I'm not going to argue the issue, I could discuss more, but now I consider it between you and your mind (because I don't think you believe in God, meaning the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus, that's why I say you and your view).

If your God created all things as they are, and God doesn't make mistakes, then everything that exists now is exactly what your God wanted and intended. Childhood cancer? Your God created that. Why?

 

[leroy]

No I didn't. I explained that it was a claim and listed supporting evidence for the claim based on your scenario.

Please don't put words in my mouth or erroneously attribute actions to me that are incorrect and that I did not conduct.

I find it perplexing that you are trying to defend tag with creative language and word games ..... Instead of simply saying that he is wrong.

If a local person tells you about the location of a restaurant, you would accept the claim as evidence for such location.....you obviously agree. But you won't say it clearly and unambiguously because you don't want to explicitly disagree with tag

 

[leroy]

The fine tuning claim has been debunked, and is a laughable claim by creationists. See, now you are not even trying to conceal your actual creationist assumptions.

Ok sumerize the strongest argument against the FT?

 

[F1fan]

Ok sumerize the strongest argument against the FT?

My, how lazy you are. You introduced the idea, but you expect others to do homework?

Fine tuning is garbage. It's your claim. And since no experts back this bogus idea when you introduce it it's on you to explain why.

But we know why. You're biased as a creationist and want to spread non-factual ideas like fine tuning because there is no evidence for the idea of God you think exists. Creationism is fraud. The well educated know it.

 

[leroy]

My, how lazy you are. You introduced the idea, but you expect others to do homework?

Fine tuning is garbage. It's your claim. And since no experts back this bogus idea when you introduce it it's on you to explain why.

But we know why. You're biased as a creationist and want to spread non-factual ideas like fine tuning because there is no evidence for the idea of God you think exists. Creationism is fraud. The well educated know it.

You said that the argument was debunked by some random video .... I simply asked you to sumerize the alleged refutation