Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

I know that it is hopeless but I will take a shot.

The essential problem with the Fine Tuna Argument is that one is assuming that the values that they refer to can be tuned. We do not know if they can vary or not. They skip a huge burden of proof by making that assumption. That assumption makes it just an intricate argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy that you should recognize.

There have been other constants in the past that also looked "fined tuned". You will not see them in the fined tuned argument because we understand why they are those values. For example the relationships that one finds in Kepler's Laws. Why are they those values? That was solved when Newton came along with his Universal Gravitation.

A more recent example is one of the constants that is still used by mistake, ignorance, or just by dishonesty is the rate of expansion of the early universe. Have you heard of it, the one where if it was any faster it would have spread out too fast for life to form and any slower and it would have collapsed? In a debate with Low Bar Bill, Sean Carroll told Craig how that problem has been solved by solving the Einstein's Special Relativity for the start of the Big Bang. The "constant" is a solution to a problem. It did not have varying different possible values.

To be a legitimate argument you would have to take each constant and prove that they could have had other values. No one has ever done that to my knowledge.

Right. Gravity is what it is. Mass of any object is going to have the gravity it does. Gravity affects all objects in space and the FT claim is absurd because it suggests all gravity everywhere was designed so that it works for earth.

 

[leroy]

I already posted a video where experts explain how fine tuning is bogus.

But for some reason you refuse to explain the supposed refutation in that video…………

stop making things up, stop posting random links and videos ................ if you have an argument against the FT argument please share.....................if not then please stop quoting my comments

 

[leroy]

I already posted a video where experts explain how fine tuning is bogus.

If your video is really the opinion of experts (those who appear in the thumbnail) I bet than none of them is making the cancer argument nor anything similar…………..because even them recognize that it is a straw man objection

 

[leroy]

Right. Gravity is what it is. Mass of any object is going to have the gravity it does. Gravity affects all objects in space and the FT claim is absurd because it suggests all gravity everywhere was designed so that it works for earth.

Ohh please explain more, develop your argument, explain why is the argument absurd? (it´s a trap, do not answer, or else your ignorance would be exposed)

 

[F1fan]

But for some reason you refuse to explain the supposed refutation in that video…………

stop making things up, stop posting random links and videos ................ if you have an argument against the FT argument please share.....................if not then please stop quoting my comments

Fine tuning isn’t science. It’s not in any scientific literature. That means it’s on you (as a non-expert) to explain why we should take you seriously.

Why should any of us waste time explaining why FT is bogus when you are dead set on your creationist agenda?

 

[leroy]

I know that it is hopeless but I will take a shot.

The essential problem with the Fine Tuna Argument is that one is assuming that the values that they refer to can be tuned. We do not know if they can vary or not.

Nobody is making that assumption, for all we know it could be that these values have the values that they have because it was the only possible physically value ………. The argument would still work equally good.

As an analogy.

Imagine that you open a papaya and the seeds inside are organize such that they spell the sentence “John loves Marry”

Would this be an example of FT (yes) would you conclude design (yes)

Now lets say that you look at the DNA of the fruit and found out that this pattern was necessary given the DNA, you even identified the mutant genes that produces that pattern of meaningful letters and the sentence, and found out that any papaya with that DNA would necessary produce that pattern.

Would that harm the design hypothesis (NO) you would simply say that somebody manipulated the DNA of the fruit, but you would still conclude “design”



For the sake of the argument lets say no other values where physically possible………then what? how does that harm the FT argument?

There have been other constants in the past that also looked "fined tuned". You will not see them in the fined tuned argument because we understand why they are those values. For example the relationships that one finds in Kepler's Laws. Why are they those values? That was solved when Newton came along with his Universal Gravitation.

I am not familiar with that example, but granted, some FT problems have been solved in the past.

The issues are:

1 usually the FT problems are solved by creating a bigger problem

2 new FT problems are constantly discovered, there are more problems today than in the past.

Besides, I am pretty sure you are not going to make the fallacious argument of “we solved one FT problem 300 years ago, this means that all the other problems will be solved in the future”

To be a legitimate argument you would have to take each constant and prove that they could have had other values. No one has ever done that to my knowledge.

The only assumption the is being made is that other values are metaphysically and logically possible…………… but the argument doesn’t depend on the assumption that it is physically possible to have more values.

For example I have green eyes because I had no other option (given my DNA)……… but it would have been metaphysically and logically possible for me to have brown eyes.............agree? (YES)

.....................I am willing to grant for the sake of discussion that the FT of all the values are analogous to my eyes……………(there was not another option)……….. Then what? How does that affect the design hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody is making that assumption, for all we know it could be that these values have the values that they have because it was the only possible physically value ………. The argument would still work equally good.

As an analogy.

Imagine that you open a papaya and the seeds inside are organize such that they spell the sentence “John loves Marry”

Would this be an example of FT (yes) would you conclude design (yes)

Now lets say that you look at the DNA of the fruit and found out that this pattern was necessary given the DNA, you even identified the mutant genes that produces that pattern of meaningful letters and the sentence, and found out that any papaya with that DNA would necessary produce that pattern.

Would that harm the design hypothesis (NO) you would simply say that somebody manipulated the DNA of the fruit, but you would still conclude “design”



For the sake of the argument lets say no other values where physically possible………then what? how does that harm the FT argument?




I am not familiar with that example, but granted, some FT problems have been solved in the past.

The issues are:

1 usually the FT problems are solved by creating a bigger problem

2 new FT problems are constantly discovered, there are more problems today than in the past.

Besides, I am pretty sure you are not going to make the fallacious argument of “we solved one FT problem 300 years ago, this means that all the other problems will be solved in the future”


The only assumption the is being made is that other values are metaphysically and logically possible…………… but the argument doesn’t depend on the assumption that it is physically possible to have more values.

For example I have green eyes because I had no other option (given my DNA)……… but it would have been metaphysically and logically possible for me to have brown eyes.............agree? (YES)

.....................I am willing to grant for the sake of discussion that the FT of all the values are analogous to my eyes……………(there was not another option)……….. Then what? How does that affect the design hypothesis?

I am not reading a book. You are only making excuses when you do that. Keep your post as long as mine.

 

[leroy]

Fine tuning isn’t science. It’s not in any scientific literature. That means it’s on you (as a non-expert) to explain why we should take you seriously.

Why should any of us waste time explaining why FT is bogus when you are dead set on your creationist agenda?

Ok if your only objection is that FT not science because you say so and part of a creationists agenda…………….I have no interest in discussing this with you

If you have a real objection please contact me

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct, evidence confirms a theory. What you do not understand is that there is no "proof" in science is what makes science more reliable than just about anything else in the world. What others consider "proven" scientists will laugh at because it is not where near that.

The problem is that the theory remains that. A theory. And the pieces do not really fit in all cases. In fact in many cases there are no pieces and even if there are, there is nowhere to put them except by postulation. For instance, the first cell multiplying. And then where did it go? I'm not a betting person, but I'll bet you anyway that mankind will never find the answers, I don't care how many doctorates they have.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, and @Subduction Zone , what do the majority of scientists say now? Can something come from nothing? What do you think? Or maybe you can't answer because you're not a scientist.

 

[leroy]

I am not reading a book. You are only making excuses when you do that. Keep your post as long as mine.

ok I am taking that you will not reed my reply because it is too long (really?)

short answer……… the FT doesn’t make that assumption (you made a starwman argument)

you said....
"The essential problem with the Fine Tuna Argument is that one is assuming that the values that they refer to can be tuned. "

 

[McBell]

“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
~Douglas Adams

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that the theory remains that. A theory. And the pieces do not really fit in all cases. In fact in many cases there are no pieces and even if there are, there is nowhere to put them except by postulation. For instance, the first cell multiplying. And then where did it go? I'm not a betting person, but I'll bet you anyway that mankind will never find the answers, I don't care how many doctorates they have.

What "pieces" do not fit? You need to be precise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok I am taking that you will not reed my reply because it is too long (really?)

short answer……… the FT doesn’t make that assumption (you made a starwman argument)

you said....
"The essential problem with the Fine Tuna Argument is that one is assuming that the values that they refer to can be tuned. "

Actually that is what it has to do. Otherwise there is no "tuning'. How would you change a value of a constant? If it cannot be changed, then it does not help your argument. Its value is just its value. It is not tuned at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

What "pieces" do not fit? You need to be precise.

yeah? You first. (lol) OK, this is not my first laugh of the day, but first laugh as I'm reading the board for a little while. Thanks!

 

[Subduction Zone]

yeah? You first. (lol) OK, this is not my first laugh of the day, but first laugh as I'm reading the board for a little while. Thanks!

You made the claim. It is not my claim to support. I do not know of any pieces that do not fit so how could I post any?

You can't seem to remember that when you make a statement of fact the burden of proof is upon you. If I make one the burden of proof is upon me.

 

[Pogo]

“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
~Douglas Adams

And then the sun comes out.

/Thread

 

[YoursTrue]

You made the claim. It is not my claim to support. I do not know of any pieces that do not fit so how could I post any?

You can't seem to remember that when you make a statement of fact the burden of proof is upon you. If I make one the burden of proof is upon me.

Let's say that's true although I don't have time or inclination to go over the posts right now. So hopefully in the future you will establish a burden of "proof," even though there IS NO PROOF in science, ok, when you make a statement. Even a denial of something.

 

[leroy]

Actually that is what it has to do. Otherwise there is no "tuning'. How would you change a value of a constant? If it cannot be changed, then it does not help your argument. Its value is just its value. It is not tuned at all.

You don’t have to change the values if you don’t want………… we can assume that the values could have not been different (for example the value of gravity was given by a deterministic law of nature)…….

This assumption doesn’t harm the FT argument,

If you want a detailed explanation reed the post that you ignored because it was too large.



But just for the record, no the FT argument doesn’t assume that the values could have been different ……….

 

[McBell]

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.