From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/6/2026 12:31 AM, DB Cates wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Sorry, should have not used the acronym.   
   Your objection I believe is the Single Sample Objection (SSO).   
      
      
   >> 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?   
      
   To be honest, I did not intend on going down another hole by getting   
   into that right now.  My point was simply noting that what the viability   
   of an assumption can hold different values depending on your worldview.   
   Personally, I have no problem with this, as I have said before.  I just   
   think after awhile some of those assumptions become "fact" because they   
   appear to be unquestioned.  Someone who is proud of their work should   
   never be scared of detailing all their assumptions, even and especially   
   if there are alternate views.  I would think we can all agree on that.   
      
   >    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?   
      
   If we set aside the two groups who either agree that the fine tuning is   
   a valid argument or those who don't, we're left with the people who   
   actually did the work of finding the values.  I'll speak of those.   
      
   There is a bit of a difference in the fine tuning argument and the OoL   
   argument, in that much of the work in origins of the first cell involves   
   the mathematical probabilities of certain things happening, such as   
   getting the right amino acids to build the right proteins that can fold   
   in the right shape, etc.  These all require assumptions to some extent.   
   This work has been done by both secular and deists or theistic   
   scientists though, and their results mostly agree.   
      
   The work on the fine tuning, on the other hand, for the most part   
   involves finding the exact value of the different parameters or   
   constants.  Most of this work was done by secular scientists, and almost   
   all of it is accepted as correct.  There is consensus in the discovered   
   values.  What it all means is where the parting occurs.  For me, it is   
   evidence of intelligent design.  For you it does this with the SSO   
   argument.   
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)