From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/5/2026 4:51 PM, DB Cates wrote:   
   > On 2026-02-05 11:47 a.m., sticks wrote:   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The fine tuning chapter follows the chapter on the Big Bang and the   
   >> implications of what the scientific consensus is and what that means.   
   >> They have done the best job of explaining this I have ever read.  When   
   >> you understand that and immediately go into the details of the fine   
   >> tuning and the complete mathematical improbability of them being the   
   >> way they are, things certainly appear to be designed and not possible   
   >> from purely materialistic means.  Next they spend time on the   
   >> Multiverse.  It is currently the best and really only alternative the   
   >> naturalist has to counter the conclusions of the evidence the book   
   >> presents as current scientific consensus.  I see why they did the   
   >> chapter, especially since I personally think it is a batshit crazy   
   >> idea, but it was not necessary to include it in the book.  It's a   
   >> purely theoretical idea, and simply is not scientific.  To the   
   >> materialist it just gives an example of something that might have   
   >> happened since we know the supernatural doesn't.  It gives them more   
   >> time.   
   >>   
   >> They then go into OoL with the chapter they title "Biology: The   
   >> Incredible Leap from Inert to Living Matter."  Again, the numbers are   
   >> not new, but the mathematical probabilities of this happening is shown   
   >> by research to be effectively impossible.  As with the first two, the   
   >> Big Bang and the Fine Tuning, the materialist does not accept this   
   >> mathematical impossibility and continues in their search.  An example   
   >> is the article Pro Plyd just posted showing the discovery of a complex   
   >> molecule they say has, "significant implications for the study of the   
   >> cosmic origins of life."  I would EXPECT findings like this and   
   >> suggest it is wonderful to see things being discovered, but it really   
   >> does nothing to explain the real difficulties with Ool.  It just gives   
   >> them more time.   
   >> [snip]   
      
   > The problem I have with the 'fine tuning' argument is that it is based   
   > on a sample of one and requires some unfounded assumptions to calculate   
   > probabilities. Without making some assumptions we cannot get probabilities.   
      
   I don't see the need to cover the objections to the SSO, and why some   
   would claim it fails.  I'm sure you know them.   
      
   I will take this opportunity to note that yes, assumptions are often a   
   necessary requirement in any scientific endeavor, especially in origins   
   research.  For example, I have difficulty with some of the assumptions   
   that have to be made in the field of radiometric dating.  I assume you   
   would be in the camp that would say they are not using assumptions, but   
   instead inductive logic.   
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)