Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Димитар]

@leroy

I will give you just a suggestion

Read this , maybe it will change something for you , maybe not.

https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/23663950/Panentheism_and_Natural_Science_A_Good_Match.pdf

I must say also as a Theist that i don't like the concept of FT , i don't like also the concept of intellegent design.And i discovered that recently.

This all followed as i understood how Evolution works.

Evolution is the most heavily proven idea in the entire history of human knowledge. In 150 years of consistent and active research no one has found any evidence at all against it.

 

[leroy]

If that is too complicated, then you are not capable though you could ask the guy taking notes at the other end of the table. LOL

Translation, you didnt understand ether

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t understand what Carlol meant do you? Care to explain it…………….. care to support it with a source?

Obviously better than you do. I need to remind you that your version of the argument is flawed. The very idea of an constant being "fine tuned" means that it was chosen to fit a value. That is what you are arguing for that a god did the choosing. He showed that it was not a choice. It was a solution to a problem. That is why constants of Kepler are never used by Fine Tunas. Those values were solved. You probably will not get this either. And no source is needed. You can listen to Carroll. There is no better source.

 

[leroy]

Obviously better than you do.

The expalin it with your own words

The very idea of an constant being "fine tuned" means that it was chosen to fit a value. That is what you are arguing for that a god did the choosing.

Says who?

Nobody defines FT the way you do (in this contex)

Fine tuned doesn’t mean “chosen”

. That is why constants of Kepler are never used by Fine Tunas. Those values were solved.

Yes, we whent over that before, some FT have been solved……so what?......... I am pretty sure you will not make the fallacious argument of “some FT have been solved without a designer, therefore all problems will be solved in the future”

You probably will not get this either. And no source is needed. You can listen to Carroll. There is no better source.

Granted, Carlol is a good source, you can quote to an article where he explains what he means,.

I don’t doubt that Carlol made a true claim that is factually correct, what I doubt is that he said what you think he said.

For the record

I claimed that if gravity would have been .1% stronger the universe would have collapsed in a black hole, then you said (implied) that Carlol refutes that point.

 

[F1fan]

The expalin it with your own words

Says who?

Nobody defines FT the way you do (in this contex)

Fine tuned doesn’t mean “chosen”

Fine tuning is not based on facts or reasoning, and it is a set of bad guesses that go back over 2000 years. The guesses have evolved (sorry) over that time to adjust to knowledge. Today it is irrelevant and tied to creationism.

Yes, we whent over that before, some FT have been solved……so what?.........

It's incorrect.

I am pretty sure you will not make the fallacious argument of “some FT have been solved without a designer, therefore all problems will be solved in the future”

It's a pattern that hurts your beliefs.

 

[leroy]

Evolution is the most heavily proven idea in the entire history of human knowledge. In 150 years of consistent and active research no one has found any evidence at all against it.

I think you are overestimating the TOE, but I agree with your main point……The evidence in favor of evolution (say common ancestry) is conclusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The expalin it with your own words



Says who?

Nobody defines FT the way you do (in this contex)

Fine tuned doesn’t mean “chosen”



Yes, we whent over that before, some FT have been solved……so what?......... I am pretty sure you will not make the fallacious argument of “some FT have been solved without a designer, therefore all problems will be solved in the future”


Granted, Carlol is a good source, you can quote to an article where he explains what he means,.

I don’t doubt that Carlol made a true claim that is factually correct, what I doubt is that he said what you think he said.

For the record

I claimed that if gravity would have been .1% stronger the universe would have collapsed in a black hole, then you said (implied) that Carlol refutes that point.

You cannot even understand the Fine Tuned argument. How are you going to understand its refutation?

 

[blü 2]

I will not ask you to do the impossible task of responding to every point in the video, but please do quote a relevant mistake (quote the actual words)

For a start. like you he never defines what real thing ─ what entity with objective existence ─ he intends to denote when he says "God".

So it continues to be the case that the only manner in which gods are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains.

 

[gnostic]

No, no, no, first acknowledge that you wrongly accused me for “circular reasoning” then we can deal with your other “objections”

Wow, you still don’t even know what circular reasoning is.

Circular reasoning is when you already have conclusion (eg God or Designer) in mind, but what you have presented in your so-called premise(s), don’t even demonstrate what you have concluded…meaning there are no real link between your premises and your conclusion. Where there are no real link between the two (premises-conclusion), then it is merely defect in your argument, a circular reasoning.

Let’s go back to your original premises on fine-tuning & designer argument, below:

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.

You have not demonstrated in any of these 3 premises that link to the designer - not logically, and definitely not evidentially.

You are merely jumping to the conclusion of designer regardless if there are no logical reasoning or no evidence to do so.

There are two ways that I know of that a person have circular reasoning (these come from Wikipedia article on circular reasoning, I have merely put in bullet-point form):

Circular Reasoning, Wikipedia

1. …there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion,
2. or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion

What is strange, that your argument actually meets both circular reasoning points.

So your so-called pleading that you are innocent of using circular reasoning, is a false, so no one, including @F1fan , don’t owe you apology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It matters because personally I am not interested in having a conversation with someone who doesn’t understand the argument.

If you want a detailed explanation on what the argument is and how the premises are supported, then watch this 5 series videos. (the information in this video represents my view)

I will not watch any video's with obnoxious apologists who make me want to rip my arm off just so I would have something to throw at him.

So, is it that you don't want to support your claims in your own words, or that you can't?

I noticed that later in the thread you were given a video of Caroll dismantling your silly fallacious arguments and in response you are demanding posters to explain Caroll's argument "in their own words". I'm guessing you expect them to comply with that? But I also guess that when I ask you to do the same, you feel like you don't have to, right?

ok you have the videos.............whatch them and share 1 objection

No. As said, we are still not at the stage where the ball is in my court to offer any objections, should I have any.
We are still stuck in step one where I ask you to support / justify your claims and you refusing to do so.

If I have an objection, that objection will be against your justification of your claims. And since you refuse to share those, there isn't actually anything for me to object (or agree) to.

So at this stage, I have only 2 options:

1. ask you to support your claims

2. reject your claims at face value after you refuse to, or are unable to, support your claims.


The ball is in your court. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Either the next reply is you justifying your claims, or it will be me rejecting your claims at face value due to them being unsupported.

Choose your destiny.

So long & good night.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t have to violate any laws, maybe if you look today at some point of the observable universe with a telescope the stars would naturally form meaningful words and sentences by simply following their orbits and the laws of gravity.

If they would do so naturally by simply following their orbits and physical laws, then it would be natural and by definition be coincidental.

Would such an observation be evidence for design?

No.

why isen´t it analogous?

I already explained this.

Even if true, why is it disanalogous to the FT of the universe?

Which physical laws are being violated for the universe being the way it is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wrong because there are counterexamples……. For example for centuries nobody knew about the manufacturing process of how the pyramids in Egypt where built…………….but we could still detect signs of manufacture and conclude that the pyramids where design.

These signs of manufacturing are evidence of carving and stacking of rocks.
Not knowing fully in detail how the pyramids were built exactly doesn't take away the fact that the rocks are carved. We even know the quarry location.

This conclusion would still be true even if there was only one pyramid in the whole planet

Yes, but they are not the only carved rocks on the planet. Nor are they the only building.

In other words

Not knowing the manufacturing process, doesn’t imply that we can´t know if it is designed................if you dont explicitly disagree, I will assume that you agree

False. See above. The pyramids demonstrably show signs of manufacturing.

You seem very confused.

Note my courtesy, I am telling you exactly why I think you are wrong can I have rthe same courtesy

You are in fact only telling me the many ways you (deliberatly?) misunderstand the points people are making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will not watch any video's with obnoxious apologists who make me want to rip my arm off just so I would have something to throw at him.

So, is it that you don't want to support your claims in your own words, or that you can't?

I noticed that later in the thread you were given a video of Caroll dismantling your silly fallacious arguments and in response you are demanding posters to explain Caroll's argument "in their own words". I'm guessing you expect them to comply with that? But I also guess that when I ask you to do the same, you feel like you don't have to, right?




No. As said, we are still not at the stage where the ball is in my court to offer any objections, should I have any.
We are still stuck in step one where I ask you to support / justify your claims and you refusing to do so.

If I have an objection, that objection will be against your justification of your claims. And since you refuse to share those, there isn't actually anything for me to object (or agree) to.

So at this stage, I have only 2 options:

1. ask you to support your claims

2. reject your claims at face value after you refuse to, or are unable to, support your claims.


The ball is in your court. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Either the next reply is you justifying your claims, or it will be me rejecting your claims at face value due to them being unsupported.

Choose your destiny.

So long & good night.

He also ignored the fact that long before I linked the video for him I had explained "in my own words" how Carroll's argument shot down the Fine Tuna Argument. As usual he either ignored or did not understand the explanation and then he demands it again. He lost the right to demand a long time ago when he repeatedly would not let himself understand the simplest of refutations. He is pretty much on "corrections only mode". Everything that he says is going to be wrong. He won't learn. So corrections are for those that read the thread and not for him.

 

[gnostic]

@leroy

We know that you are a creationist, but you are also advocating for this fine-tuning crap.

But you seemed to be ignoring the fact, that FT is about tweaking the values until the universe works and until life are possible.

Doesn't that defeat the all-knowing & all-powerful god who created everything as narrated in Genesis as “good”?

For example:

“And God saw that it was good.”​

if some things were already created “good”, why would it need ”fine-tuning”?

Fine-tuning would be a contradiction to a perfect omniscient & omnipotent god.

 

[Pogo]

@leroy

We know that you are a creationist, but you are also advocating for this fine-tuning crap.

But you seemed to be ignoring the fact, that FT is about tweaking the values until the universe works and until life are possible.

Doesn't that defeat the all-knowing & all-powerful god who created everything as narrated in Genesis as “good”?

For example:

“And God saw that it was good.”​

if some things were already created “good”, which would it need ”fine-tuning”?

Fine-tuning would be a contradiction to a perfect omniscient & omnipotent god.

You mean like if god fine tuned the parameters for this universe which turtle set up the system that needed tuning. usw

 

[Димитар]

I think you are overestimating the TOE, but I agree with your main point……The evidence in favor of evolution (say common ancestry) is conclusive.

Then why should we not stick to Natutal Science?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The problem is that this picture is not an accurate depiction of how evolution actually works.

and yet that is exactly what we find when we search for images of human evolution...there are thousands of similar images. Whether or not you agree, that is the consensus that has been fed for decades about human evolution...its also still what we find in school textbooks on the subject of human evolution.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

In 150 years of consistent and active research no one has found any evidence at all against it.

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it. What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! (you know what a theory is right?)

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

 

[Pogo]

and yet that is exactly what we find when we search for images of human evolution...there are thousands of similar images. Whether or not you agree, that is the consensus that has been fed for decades about human evolution...its also still what we find in school textbooks on the subject of human evolution.

Did you read the captions? That is not the evolution of man at all but very old drawing of the skeletons of the current members of the ape family.
you have been lied to.

 

[Pogo]

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it. What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! (you know what a theory is right?)

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

You have been mislead about scientific theories as well.

A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

It is not a guess as the term is used colloquially.

The Theory of Evolution for most Christians is an explanation of how god created man and the other creatures according to the evidence in his created book, the earth.