Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

Already done on numerous occasions.
Address your ignorant unfounded misleading illogical infantile assertions.

 

The fraud that you perpetrate is acting like I am taking quotes out of context.
I quote top scientists. Nobel prize winning scientists.
1. You see in the video Dawkins stated phsicists say the universe is fine tuned.
2. The quote below is a survey of the top science guys in the field.

Stu you are a crackpot... this is science not religion...

3. We we talking about the appearance of fine tuning based the cosmological constant in our universe.... you just searched the web to find a "constant" that science does even know if it should classified as a constant in our known universe. Your factoid has no bearing on showing that constants are different in different parts of landscape or alternate universes. Science is not even sure if your "constant" should be called a constant in our universe. It clearly has nothing to do with alternate universes.

don't you get tired of being a fricken bozo?


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table

 

You ARE taking quotes out of context.
I've shown you time after time how and where the quotes you give do not support your assertions that the universe is fined tuned.
You never address any refutations directly.
What you do though, like a retard, is to just repeat another out of context quote, as you have done below.

So yes, you are a fraud.

I quoted one too. Only I don't try to make false claims by misrepresenting what they say. You do.

Dawkins did not remark "...physicists say the universe is fine tuned....".
Let me see. That would be just another in the long line of your willful perversions of the facts.

Just as I said, like a retard you've repeated another out of context quote.

When told on many occasions how that quote is not science, is not scientific which you claim it to be, you just post it again.
You must imagine always ignoring the obvious somehow will make you seem intelligent.

It is an essay constructed through fatally flawed reasoning, especially so, seeing as it starts out on a totally faulty premise.
It is therefore completely out of context, nothing to do with actual science or Nobel prize winning scientists, and in my opinion it ill serves MIT, even if it is only from the philosophical faculty.

If we are talking about the appearance of fine tuning we might as well talk about the appearance of a flat earth.
Even though science indicates the earth is not flat and indicates no need for fine tuning, there are still those like yourself, who will insist the opposite is the case for either or both.

Now you're trying to tell me the science that classified the fundamental constants, the most renowned fine-structure (electromagnetic) constant - is a factoid!! and science does not even know if they should be called constants!?

Apart from your sheer ignorance, how the hell do you ever expect to make anything like a rational argument coming out with pathetic statements like that?

Observed variations in the value of the fundamental fine-structure constant within this universe, has more to do with making speculations about a so called fine tuning of the universe obsolete and redundant, than they already are.

Yes Jem you are a crackpot , that much is clear, not science and everything to do with your religion.

 

Stu - you lie on just about every point you make.

Here is Dawkins telling you - you are a troll starting at 1 min 28 seconds.

 

Not at 1 min 28 seconds nor any other place does Dawkins state what your incorrect out of context misquote claims, that .... "physicists say the universe is fine tuned"

What is the matter with you?
You did the same with a Susskind vid. You couldn't hear what was actually being said, only what you wanted to hear.
Unbelievable!

 

First of all you now quote me out of context... just like you quoted De Duve and Weinberg out of context. You are a liar and a fraud.


But, what I have been telling you for years is repeated almost word for word by Dawkins starting at 1, 28. I agree with Dawkins points just not his suggested conclusion. He hopes that science will find almost infinite other universes... I would expect either a Theory of Everthing or designer.

nevertheless

As I have stated for years... to many top physicists our universe appears finely tuned.

You can lead an et atheist to science but you can't make think.




http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

Yes it is clearly stated for all to listen. But you didn't listen.

Dawkins actually says in the vid, "..some physicists have suggested... "
He does not state "physicists say the universe is fine tuned" as you wrongly misquoted him saying, putting what he does say completely out of context.

Now that you've proved yourself yet again to be completely without a clue, why don't you just pointlessly repeat troll the same cut & paste bs already refuted a dozen times?

Guess what. You did.

btw you can’t lead anyone to science when you so obviously, for years apparently , haven’t even known what it is.

 

exactly you out of context lying troll... you just conceded the point you refused to accept for almost a decade.


as I have been saying for years... some scientists state (suggest) the universe appears fine tuned.

Now we agree.

Lets move to the next step... if some scientists suggest appearance of fine tuning, that means there is evidence (not proof - evidence) of a Tuner.

 

What a loser.
Misquoting words others state as you do to suggest something different , is dishonest. Do you really expect dishonesty is the only way to support your creationist beliefs? Well, actually. yes it is.

Scientists suggesting - does NOT mean there is evidence. Anyone can suggest something, just to show how the suggestion would be wrong.
Dawkins explains how the suggestion is treated within science.

There is evidence of cosmological constants.
There is not any evidence of so called fine tuning.
Fine tuning is an anthropic expression with no evidence for it.

If you're looking for a tuner and you're using science (as if you even knew what science is), all the science shows is it is only going to be a naturalistic one.
And as far as that goes, you are as much of an atheist toward a naturalistic creator/ tuner as any other creationist.

An expression such as the universe appears fine tuned, has no more evidence going for it than the expression, the earth appears flat.


Do yourself a favor and stop being so fk’n thick.

 

do yourself a favor and learn some science. stop being a good for nothing troll and get enlightened.

you are are not arguing with me you are arguing with science.

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

---
here is a very famous former atheist...

It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

-Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

--
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)


---

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.