From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-05 7:15 p.m., sticks wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   "SSO"? I am unfamiliar.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Such as? What problems do you see concerning those assumptions?   
      
      I assume you   
   > would be in the camp that would say they are not using assumptions, but   
   > instead inductive logic.   
      
   Do the 'fine tuning' people even have that?   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)