Nic&#032Samojluk: How about the fine tuning of the universe which …

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Alien Mind.

Nic&#032Samojluk: How about the fine tuning of the universe which allowed for the appearance of life on our planet? What is this fine tuning evidence of?

Specifically what evidence are you speaking of, and how would evolutionism and creationism differ in this regard? You’ve made the bald assertion before that this constitutes scientific evidence for creationism. It’s just a bald assertion based on several fallacies, including the fallacies of argument from ignorance, incomplete comparison, post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause/effect), and the fallacy of a single cause.

Nic&#032Samojluk: Can a Big Bang explosion produce the fine tuning required for the emergence of life?

Same fallacies.

Nic&#032Samojluk: Can a non-entity be responsible for the creation—emergence if you prefer—of everything?

Same problem for both evolutionism and creationism.

Nic&#032Samojluk: How scientific is such a premise?

Your remarks and most everything Sean has to say are nothing more than philosophical arguments, not science. You’re also addressing some basic assumptions of methodological naturalism–assumptions, not science.

Nic&#032Samojluk: Is there any evidence for the creation of everything from nothing?

You and other creationists believe this, so why are you insisting this is a problem for evolutionism? Both theories are predicated on this assumption.

If I may ask, how old are you? Are you a college student?

Alien Mind Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean&#032Pitman: You could say the same thing about a highly symmetrical polished granite cube on some alien planet…The other conclusion, the one that has the greatest predictive value given what is currently known about the production of such cubes, involves intelligent design on at least the human level of intelligence and creativity.
That’s what science does.

This exercise in reification is pointless. It’s based on the fallacy of misplaced concreteness; no such cube has ever been found. It’s bizarre that Sean or anyone else would equate a hypothetical argument with no empirical basis with science.

As others have tried to point out, finding the cube suggests at most that a mind similar to that of humans visited the planet and left it behind. The obseration by itself (so-called “science”) can’t tell us whether the object was created by individuals from a former civilization of humans that ventured into outer space (which David Read apparently believes is possible), or by a different race of beings that lives elsewhere and originated in the same or different way as humans (by random processes or intelligent design).

The observation of the cube tells us absolutely nothing about the origin of the creator of the object, and has no bearing whatsoever on whether life on this planet was created by a supernatural being. The creator of life on this planet and the creator of the cube may or may not be the same; the observation alone simply cannot inform us.

Sean&#032Pitman: Science takes what little knowledge that is currently in hand and uses that knowledge to leap across our gaps in knowledge to places and conclusions that cannot be definitively known.

The conclusion you insist can be reached by the cube example does not comprise science. To conclude that the observation constitutes evidence for a supernatural creator is absolutely a faith-based fideistic religious argument, not science.