Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

When an analogy fails, don't simply repeat it.

What?

Failure to shift the burden of evidence.

You are begging the question.

Yes, if you want to claim tunable "tuning" is falsifiable.

Why?

He disagrees with you.

No he doesn't. He says that they had hoped to find a law or reason for the values to have to be what they are and have failed.

String theory is unfalsifiable.

Ok.

I am not making the claim of necessity. Read the passage in context.

Then explain what you are claiming.

But we lack evidence either way. Correct?

No, we don't have evidence that they have to be the way they are. We have evidence that provides substantiation that they don't have to be as they are and could have been different.

Opinion, as you have conceded. Your words from Post #625 "The "appearance" of design which some claim is not actual design is based on only opinion and no testing or observation has been done to determine the conclusion. The appearance of design or actual design conclusions are not based on scientific data or tested by scientific methodology. It is opinion."

The appearance of design is there determined by the fine tuning of the universe appearing to be an intent by an agent for a purpose. That is the basis for the appearance. It is actually from the testing and observation that this conclusion was agreed upon.

I agree with them. The appearance of design is an illusion.

Cite those that have claimed the appearance is an illusion.

No, you are cherry-picking what you want from the opinions that run counter to the consensus.

False.

Your words: "The "appearance" of design which some claim is not actual design is based on only opinion and no testing or observation has been done to determine the conclusion. The appearance of design or actual design conclusions are not based on scientific data or tested by scientific methodology. It is opinion. "

It is an opinion that there is a Universal Common Ancestor. There is no evidence in the fossil record for it and it doesn't still exist; yet it is the opinion that there was a UCA by the genetic evidence cited by biologists for its support.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

You are doing a fine job of it yourself.

 

[Davian]

What?



You are begging the question.



Why?



No he doesn't. He says that they had hoped to find a law or reason for the values to have to be what they are and have failed.



Ok.



Then explain what you are claiming.



No, we don't have evidence that they have to be the way they are. We have evidence that provides substantiation that they don't have to be as they are and could have been different.



The appearance of design is there determined by the fine tuning of the universe appearing to be an intent by an agent for a purpose. That is the basis for the appearance. It is actually from the testing and observation that this conclusion was agreed upon.



Cite those that have claimed the appearance is an illusion.




False.



It is an opinion that there is a Universal Common Ancestor. There is no evidence in the fossil record for it and it doesn't still exist; yet it is the opinion that there was a UCA by the genetic evidence cited by biologists for its support.




You are doing a fine job of it yourself.

Is this statement accurate, yes or no?: "The "appearance" of design which some claim is not actual design is based on only opinion and no testing or observation has been done to determine the conclusion. The appearance of design or actual design conclusions are not based on scientific data or tested by scientific methodology. It is opinion."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hence your position is unfalsifiable. You lack sufficient data to conclude design, but by all appearances, you had reached the "designed" conclusion long before you had looked for any data, and you are simply cherry-picking science to prop up your beliefs.

You created a false dichotomy.

The universe was created prior to my claims that it is fine tuned and appears to be designed. Those in the field that do not have a reason to "prop up the belief in God" have made that conclusion. You fail.

Does the design of certain products give the appearance of design? Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

Hence your position is unfalsifiable. You lack sufficient data to conclude design, but by all appearances, you had reached the "designed" conclusion long before you had looked for any data, and you are simply cherry-picking science to prop up your beliefs.

You created a false dichotomy.

The universe was created prior to my claims that it is fine tuned and appears to be designed. Those in the field that do not have a reason to "prop up the belief in God" have made that conclusion. You fail.

"Design" and "appears to be designed" are two different things. Try again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Design" and "appears to be designed" are two different things. Try again.

Does a watch appear designed?
Does a computer appear designed?
Does a house appear designed?
Does a cell phone appear designed?

Does the appearance of design come from actual design?

 

[Davian]

Does a watch appear designed?
Does a computer appear designed?
Does a house appear designed?
Does a cell phone appear designed?

Does the appearance of design come from actual design?

It may, or it may be the result of apophenia.

Show me a universe that was actually designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It may, or it may be the result of apophenia.

Show me a universe that was actually designed.

So the appearance of design of a watch might be a result of apophenia?

A car?
A computer?
A house? etc?

 

[Davian]

So the appearance of design of a watch might be a result of apophenia?

A car?
A computer?
A house? etc?

Show me a universe that was actually designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show me a universe that was actually designed.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

So the appearance of design of a watch might be a result of apophenia?

A car?
A computer?
A house? etc?



​

Does the design of certain products give the appearance of design? Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

So the appearance of design of a watch might be a result of apophenia?

A car?
A computer?
A house? etc?



​

Does the design of certain products give the appearance of design? Yes or no?

I asked first. Show me a universe that was actually designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Never underestimate the capacity to be wrong. One can certainly observe things in non scientific ways. Most of us don't even notice how much bias and misinformation comes out of our mouths and leeches into our actions.

How does this relate to the experts who have used scientific methods to determine fine tuning and how that has the appearance of design?

2. Sure, our mental tendency to perceive stuff in nature as designed, even if it isn't. Just like we see faces in pretty much anything that could come remotely close to having some resemblance to the structure of a face.

Do you feel the scientists are doing this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked first. Show me a universe that was actually designed.

I never claimed I could. My claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does a watch appear designed?
Does a computer appear designed?
Does a house appear designed?
Does a cell phone appear designed?

Does the appearance of design come from actual design?

All wolves are mammals, but not all mammals are wolves. You are committing a category error.

 

[justlookinla]

I never claimed I could. My claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

I wonder how many appearances of design must be presented before one would concede design?

Remember, these are the same folks who believe that they're a product of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago. They would seemingly rather believe in nothing creating them rather than to recognize the incomprehensible complexity of their existence.

 

[justlookinla]

All wolves are mammals, but not all mammals are wolves. You are committing a category error.

Who's category?

 

[Oncedeceived]

All wolves are mammals, but not all mammals are wolves. You are committing a category error.

No I'm not. Appearance of design is either due to actual design or something else.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wonder how many appearances of design must be presented before one would concede design?

Remember, these are the same folks who believe that they're a product of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago. They would seemingly rather believe in nothing creating them rather than to recognize the incomprehensible complexity of their existence.

The illusions get so deep that I doubt they recognize reality.

 

[Davian]

I never claimed I could. My claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.

Opinion does not establish possibility.

Without a universe that was actually designed for comparative purposes, your position remains unfalsifiable.

 

[Davian]

I wonder how many appearances of design must be presented before one would concede design?

For the purposes of comparing universes, I would need to see one that was actually designed. A large sample set would be better.

 

[Davian]

The illusions get so deep that I doubt they recognize reality.

I recognize religion, which is what you are selling.