PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Can we at least be done arguing about it? We are just going in circles here, and I think the reasonable step here would just be to agree to disagree.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The appearance of design supports design. I can't show the design is actual. I think it supports actual design but that is all that I can do as far as science goes.
The appearance of design supports design. I can't show the design is actual. I think it supports actual design but that is all that I can do as far as science goes.
Perhaps if some of us were able to remove the imaginary God from the equation it would all sort itself out.Can we at least be done arguing about it? We are just going in circles here, and I think the reasonable step here would just be to agree to disagree.
So in other words we see appearances of design and we see appearances of patterns of similarities in organisms but we are going to go with the conclusion that it is all natural in origin because.....??....an intelligent designer can't be an answer?
I have seen many scientific sources that get things right and also get things wrong (from the Christian perspective) in the same source. A lot of it is assumptions based on the naturalistic viewpoint mixed in with the facts.
Dodge. You claimed the appearance of design was a fact.
All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. Not a fact. As for your God, it is still a no-show.
You can't show me where you have shown that the 'tuning' is falsifiable, can you?
Dodge. The subject was design, not the appearance of design. Without access to other universes, "design" is unfalsifiable.
Your statement about God was an unevidenced assertion, was it not? You disagree with the consensus of experts that say the appearance of design is only an illusion, do you not?
You cannot show where, can you?
The consensus of the experts you have cited conclude that the appearance of design is an illusion. Do you agree with that?
No, that isn't what I am saying. Personally, I don't think the universe looks designed anyways. However, the point is, just looking at something like that isn't a scientific observation to begin with, but even if it was, it remains illogical to use sources that ultimately disagree with you as support for your position.
Can we at least be done arguing about it? We are just going in circles here, and I think the reasonable step here would just be to agree to disagree.
Can we at least be done arguing about it? We are just going in circles here, and I think the reasonable step here would just be to agree to disagree.
The appearance of something only supports the appearance of something. It doesn't support the actual something nore does it suggest a reason for the appearance of the something.
It's an observation that requires an explanation. It doesn't suggest an explanation. You just like to pretend it does.
Perhaps if some of us were able to remove the imaginary God from the equation it would all sort itself out.
We don't just see "appearances" of patterns of similarities in organisms.
Instead, we observe actual patterns called nested hierarchies. They don't "appear" to be there. The are there.
And they require an explanation. Evolution theory offers a perfectly viable explanation. It can be tested and is falsifiable. It is put to the test with every new genome sequences, with every fossil that is dug up, with every new species that is discovered. It's as solid a theory as they come.
Your "intelligent designer" is not an acceptable answer. For 2 reasons:
1. we already have a viable and sufficient theory. That's not to say more factors could come into play that we currently know of, but you'll require evidence to suggest them.
2. the reason you suggest your designer is not because of you have valid evidence to support it... it's because you are required to believe that a designer is involved due to your a priori religious beliefs. Why should scientists, or indeed anyone else, care about your faith-based beliefs and biases when it comes to explaining the phenomena of nature?
99% of all proposed ideas in science are wrong.
That's how you make progress. Investigate your ideas and those of your peers and prove them to be wrong. The few ideas that stand tall after that merciless process, are the theories we all know today: evolution, atoms, relativity, electro magnetism, germs, ... etc.
It's called "learning". In the words of Dr Krauss: "some people would rather read an ancient book, instead of learning".
You are in a forum that is about God. If you wish to "remove" God then perhaps you are in the wrong place?
This particular part of the forum is about science.
Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I have yet to see science need to include a God in it's discussion of the natural world.
So, you can add a God if you like and others can choose not to add a God and go with what the evidence states.
In the end, everyone goes home happy.
That depends on what creates that appearance.
If we "look" at something and we perceive something from what is there that is due to our perception alone. However, when this something is a measured, tested and observed phenomena that has to small of a possibility to be by chance
and appears to have been created by an intent of an agent for a purpose that appearance does support the actual.
I don't pretend anything. We see that the existence of life on earth sets on a knife's edge to exist at all. There are too many instances and duel necessities of the values to happen by chance alone. God may not be something you wish to entertain but it is a valid explanation.
So is it about science and nothing but science and creation can take a hike?
We don't just see "appearances" of fine tuning either. We observe very specific phenomena that show life exists due to them.
You have no reason to assume that evolution without an intelligent designer is possible.
Why should science determine a priori that God is not necessary?
So what is to say what is right?
Science is usually about science yes, otherwise, it wouldn't be science, now would it?
As I stated, you are free to add a God to any theory you like, if that is your desire.
In the science forum though, I would expect to be questioned on the same and to be able to objectively support your claims, as science does.
I see you are not really interested in my answers.
Who determines what is objective and how it relates to the science of creationism?
So in your estimation there is no science in creationism and you win by default.
The system of science is to study the natural world.
Science is a very valid operation, however, it is not the decider of truth or does it speak to the supernatural.
Who determines what is objective and how it relates to the science of creationism?
So in your opinion, this forum is based on science yet it is actually a forum that discusses the science of evolution/creationism. So in your estimation there is no science in creationism and you win by default. The system of science is to study the natural world. So perhaps we should just fold up and go home?
Science is a very valid operation, however, it is not the decider of truth or does it speak to the supernatural. There are some assumptions that science must make and there are some assumptions that must be made in regard to God. However, we are reasonable and intelligent beings and to discuss evolution/creation one must understand the limitations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?