Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

The sillyness of your comments is beyond my understanding

Here is another problem of yours. When you have been shown to be wrong to the point that even you know that you are wrong all you can do is to insult. You can never defend your bogus beliefs.

So, thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[leroy]

@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.

But you seemed to be ignoring the fact, that FT is about tweaking the values

No FT doesn't mean tweaking

Ft simply means that the life permitting values are narrow. ..... There is no Tunning in the literal sense of the word

 

[Pogo]

No FT doesn't mean tweaking

Ft simply means that the life permitting values are narrow. ..... There is no Tunning in the literal sense of the word

Well then there is obviously no need for a tuna.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No FT doesn't mean tweaking

Ft simply means that the life permitting values are narrow. ..... There is no Tunning in the literal sense of the word

Even if that claim of yours is true it is only a fancy argument from ignorance. It is based upon a logical fallacy.

There are at least two answers to it. One is that those may be all "physical necessity". There is no valid reason to assume that they are not. I gave you Kepler's constants as what looked like fine tuned numbers were not. The fact that they were very simple numbers does not make a difference. Except that it may indicate that the solution is relatively simple. Of course they were not at all 'simple" before Kepler did his work. He pulled out a relationship that indicated an answer existed. The raw data did not show that at all.

Then there is Sean Carroll and the rate of expansion of the universe. One of the large values that you set so much stock on. It is "physical necessity". It is not fine tuned.

You did not seem to read or understand the philosophical article that I linked for you, perhaps the Wiki article would help, let me give you a few nice quotes from it as well:

Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that it is not yet known how many independent physical constants there are. The standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters and general relativity has one more, the cosmological constant, which is known to be nonzero but profoundly small in value. Because physicists have not developed an empirically successful theory of quantum gravity, there is no known way to combine quantum mechanics, on which the standard model depends, and general relativity.[17]"

Interesting. "freely adjustable" seems to contradict "no tuning'. Of course it could be as you called it "physical necessity" which would mean that there was no tuning for that variable. And in fact, there may be more physical necessity than you think:

"Some explanations of fine-tuning are naturalistic.[26] First, the fine-tuning might be an illusion: more fundamental physics may explain the apparent fine-tuning in physical parameters in our current understanding by constraining the values those parameters are likely to take. As Lawrence Krauss put it, "certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don't seem to be so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective."[22] Some argue it is possible that a final fundamental theory of everything will explain the underlying causes of the apparent fine-tuning in every parameter.[27][22]"

Once again, all those values may be understood some day. As was shown by Sean Carroll. Scientists are nowhere near solving all of them, but that never means that they will not be solved.

And another possible answer is the Multiverse. That to me is highly speculative, but that is because I am not a physicist, but a multiverse could easily solve the supposed problems. It does not appear to be any more unlikely than proposing a "designer". You should not let big numbers scare you. If they did the big numbers of places where life cannot exist in our universe should scare you.

 

[McBell]

You did not understand the point. I'll be more explicit for your sake: those who say I am a liar are lying. OK? Now do you understand?

See, that wasn't so hard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, that wasn't so hard.

She may not be telling falsehoods on purpose, which is technically required for being a liar. There is no doubt that she repeats quite a few falsehoods.

She should know that they are falsehoods, but sometimes cognitive dissonance can protect someone from openly lying even when it seems that they have to know that they are wrong.

 

[McBell]

She may not be telling falsehoods on purpose, which is technically required for being a liar. There is no doubt that she repeats quite a few falsehoods.

She should know that they are falsehoods, but sometimes cognitive dissonance can protect someone from openly lying even when it seems that they have to know that they are wrong.

I agree with you.
I also do not believe she is lying.
She is merely wrong.
That she goes to such lengths to be wrong is actually interesting and at time most entertaining.

 

[leroy]

Then there is Sean Carroll and the rate of expansion of the universe. One of the large values that you set so much stock on. It is "physical necessity"

Then provide the source.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree with you.
I also do not believe she is lying.
She is merely wrong.
That she goes to such lengths to be wrong is actually interesting and at time most entertaining.

I entered these conversations basically to see how evolutionists' believe, and I found some remarkable things. Not about the theory of evolution, but that it directly contradicts what the Bible says in many ways and yet there are somewhat devout churchgoers who support the theory and sometimes saying the Bible is full of myths. I found out basically what I wanted to know. I'm not here to fight about it. I understand the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then provide the source.

I gave you the source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I entered these conversations basically to see how evolutionists' believe, and I found some remarkable things. Not about the theory of evolution, but that it directly contradicts what the Bible says in many ways and yet there are somewhat devout churchgoers who support the theory and sometimes saying the Bible is full of myths. I found out basically what I wanted to know. I'm not here to fight about it. I understand the theory.

So you break another Commandment by making a false idol of the Bible. Brilliant solution.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you break another Commandment by making a false idol of the Bible. Brilliant solution.

Nope. You're wrong again, but I leave that up to you to figure out and the Higher Power I believe in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You're wrong again, but I leave that up to you to figure out and the Higher Power I believe in.

No, I am quite correct. But you appear to be very very afraid to learn. You can never know how wrong you are if you refuse to learn the basics of science.

 

[McBell]

I entered these conversations basically to see how evolutionists' believe, and I found some remarkable things. Not about the theory of evolution, but that it directly contradicts what the Bible says in many ways and yet there are somewhat devout churchgoers who support the theory and sometimes saying the Bible is full of myths. I found out basically what I wanted to know. I'm not here to fight about it. I understand the theory.

Sounds like you are flat out admitting you were trolling this whole thread...

 

[YoursTrue]

Sounds like you are flat out admitting you were trolling this whole thread...

Not at all. Your perceptions are off, I notice. But that's the way it is with some people. I told you why I was questioning, and I got my answers. Sounds like you're trolling me.

 

[leroy]

I gave you the source.

Apart from that video......do you have any other source ?

 

[McBell]

Not at all. Your perceptions are off, I notice. But that's the way it is with some people. I told you why I was questioning, and I got my answers. Sounds like you're trolling me.

Yes, you said you were looking for something and found what it was you wanted to find.
You said you did this in more than this thread.

Now when we go back and read your posts with this new information in mind, it appears you were merely trolling for the answers you wanted to get.

Of course, it now appears you do not know what trolling is either.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you said you were looking for something and found what it was you wanted to find.
You said you did this in more than this thread.

Now when we go back and read your posts with this new information in mind, it appears you were merely trolling for the answers you wanted to get.

Of course, it now appears you do not know what trolling is either.

I was looking to see how people like you (evolutionists') support their belief. And I found what I was looking for.

 

[YoursTrue]

P.S. @McBell - I may respond to some "facts" you put up in the future -- we'll see. Oh, I don't necessarily mean you because you do not generally put up anything but ridicule, or misconceptions about me, but that's ok. Have a nice evening.

 

[McBell]

P.S. @McBell - I may respond to some "facts" you put up in the future -- we'll see. Oh, I don't necessarily mean you because you do not generally put up anything but ridicule, or misconceptions about me, but that's ok. Have a nice evening.

You are trying to hard to be a victim.

But you continue to do you.

It is still entertaining at least.