Irony of the evolutionary belief

[McBell]

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

The FT claim assumes the values can be changed.
but if the values cannot be changed, there is no tuning. Fine or otherwise.

 

[McBell]

And then the sun comes out.

/Thread

Not actually the thread.

But it is far more than enough to dismiss the FT claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 ……….

Then there is no tuning. And the argument fails. You do not even understand your own argument. When you do not understand your own argument you cannot understand the refutation.

"The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. "

If the values cannot change they are not "tuned". They just are. Can you not see the implication in that short quote?

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Pogo]

Not actually the thread.

But it is far more than enough to dismiss the FT claim.

1/2 of it anyhow, the reminder made my day. Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

to say that gravity is FT Simply means that if gravity would have been a Little bit stronger or weaker, the universe would have evolved such that no life could have not ever appear……………for example if gravity would have been 1% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole, soon after the big bang , which means that not even atoms would exist in this universe (if you dont have atoms you can´t have life)

there are a few docens of similar examples other than gravity.

(Is make a basket the correct term for basketball?)

Basket ball is a good analogy, in order to score points you have to throw the ball and make a basket……… but in order to do that you have to throw the ball at a very specific speed with a very specific angle at a very specific distance, very specific direction etc………………such that if you change a single value, (say the angle) for as little as 1% the ball will fail to hit the basket and no points will be scored.

So the argument is that if you are resting in some bench in some park and you suddenly see how a ball made a basket, you would be justify in concluding that someone throw the ball with the intention of scoring points……… even if you didn’t saw the basketball player, even if there is no prior evidence for anyone in the park, the observation of a ball making a basket would be stogn evidence that there is a basket ball player. (design)

So what Fine Tuning was necessary before God could exist?

I think the answer is necessarily, humans had to exist, but I'm curious as your own view.

 

[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.

Don't you remember? lol...

 

[YoursTrue]

Then there is no tuning. And the argument fails. You do not even understand your own argument. When you do not understand your own argument you cannot understand the refutation.

"The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. "

If the values cannot change they are not "tuned". They just are. Can you not see the implication in that short quote?

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now that you mentioned it, can you describe how everything got set so life can be on the earth? Betcha can't and bet you scientists cannot, even if it's amazingly good for life on earth. But anyway, no use quibbling, since mankind is said by scientists to incur destruction on the earth for themselves by their inventions. Hope your enjoyed your day.

 

[McBell]

1/2 of it anyhow, the reminder made my day. Thanks.

Notice how the ones "arguing" for FT have completely ignored it?

Comic gold it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that you mentioned it, can you describe how everything got set so life can be on the earth? Betcha can't and bet you scientists cannot, even if it's amazingly good for life on earth. But anyway, no use quibbling, since mankind is said by scientists to incur destruction on the earth for themselves by their inventions. Hope your enjoyed your day.

This is an example of why the Fine Tuna argument is foolish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't you remember? lol...

I hate to say this, but are you on something today? You seem to be far odder than normal. I am having serious concerns for you.

 

[Pogo]

This is an example of why the Fine Tuna argument is foolish.

But Hot Tuna

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You must feel like a scared cat in a tree.

Just about everything reminds me of a song these days. Here's a classic that always sounds great ("Look at me. I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree"):

How many millions of lifetimes did it take for apes to learn to cook? And other stupid apes are still jumping

Yes, I know. We're not all evolving at the same rate even within our species, although now I'm referring to cultural evolution, where memes play the role genes do in biological evolution, and they are learned, not inherited. Some haven't progressed past where man was intellectually or morally two and three millennia ago.

The problem is that the theory remains that. A theory.

That's not a problem. That's an achievement. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you also have a problem with the germ theory of infectious disease? Does the word theory bother you there? That theory is also correct beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise with the heliocentric theory.

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.

You're probably correct, but that's also not a problem. I also don't know the calendar dates in the year 1024 in which it rained where I presently live, and like you, I'll bet you "that mankind will never find the answers, I don't care how many doctorates they have." Not a problem at all.

Now that you mentioned it, can you describe how everything got set so life can be on the earth? Betcha can't and bet you scientists cannot, even if it's amazingly good for life on earth.

Also not a problem, and you seem to understand that, since you can't explain that either. Do you feel like that's a problem for you? Are you going to give up your god belief because you can't explain how a god could exist or how it does what it is said to do? Probably not. Me, neither, because neither of us need that answer or can have it at this time if ever.

Your ignorantium arguments are impotent. They reveal nothing except that you don't understand the magnificence of a scientific theory or how we arrive at them, which is fine, since obviously you can get what you need to stay alive without that knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

Ok if your only objection is that FT not science because you say so

No, it's NOT part of science. It's not my opinion. I've asked you to show where FT is anywhere in reputable science literature. You have nothing, so we throw it out.

Notice the well educated defer to experts in science. You have a creationist agenda and use creationist fraud as sources. You lose because you are on the losing side.

and part of a creationists agenda…………….I have no interest in discussing this with you

Of course you don't, it would mean you have to admit you are on the losing side. You don;t want to acknowledge anything that shows your beliefs wrong. That is your fatal flaw.

If you have a real objection please contact me

All the educated have objections to your creationist nonsense. You are just too indoctrinated and stubborn to realize you are mistaken.

 

[F1fan]

The FT claim assumes the values can be changed.
but if the values cannot be changed, there is no tuning. Fine or otherwise.

And it implies the creator got it wrong the first time and had to fiddle with the math to make it work.

Why didn't God get it right the first time? So the FT argument is kind of a loser for religious arguments that claim a perfect God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just about everything reminds me of a song these days. Here's a classic that always sounds

Also not a problem, and you seem to understand that, since you can't explain that either. Do you feel like that's a problem for you? Are you going to give up your god belief because you can't explain how a god could exist or how it does what it is said to do? Probably not. Me, neither, because neither of us need that answer or can have it at this time if ever.

Your ignorantium arguments are impotent. They reveal nothing except that you don't understand the magnificence of a scientific theory or how we arrive at them, which is fine, since obviously you can get what you need to stay alive without that knowledge.

OK. You obviously think that; I do not. So -- as time marches on, have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

I hate to say this, but are you on something today? You seem to be far odder than normal. I am having serious concerns for you.

lol, thank you. You can't remember what it was you were questioning, lol, ok...

 

[blü 2]

Just about everything reminds me of a song these days. Here's a classic that always sounds great ("Look at me. I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree"):

Thanks for the Ella! Beautiful.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an example of why the Fine Tuna argument is foolish.

back up your claim

 

[Subduction Zone]

back up your claim

I did. I explained why it failed. The problem is that neither you nor @leroy understand the argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did. I explained why it failed. The problem is that neither you nor @leroy understand the argument.

Since it's an argument and detailed at that, I'll let others work on it.