Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 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.

 

[JayFern]

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.

Perhaps if some of us were able to remove the imaginary God from the equation it would all sort itself out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

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?

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.

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".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dodge. You claimed the appearance of design was a fact.

Yes, I did. So do the scientists in the field.

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.

No. You are confused. They have said that the fine tuning "seems" or "appears" designed. They all agree that the fine tuning is a fact, it is called the fine tuning observation. You seem to be under false assumptions concerning what you think fine tuning is and what apparent design means.

You can't show me where you have shown that the 'tuning' is falsifiable, can you?

Perhaps you need to tell me in your own words what fine tuning is. Why you feel it is not falsifiable needs addressed as well.

Dodge. The subject was design, not the appearance of design. Without access to other universes, "design" is unfalsifiable.

So you believe that with access to other universes design can be falsified?

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?

1. Fine tuning is a phenomena observed in our universe and measured by scientific methods. Science has tested by scientific method the values and have come to the observation that they are fine tuned for life. This testing is peer reviewed, scientific in nature and can be falsified.

2. 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.

I disagree with opinion. Opinion is based on ones worldview. There are those that have come to a new worldview based on the fine tuning of the universe as it convinced them that the appearance of design so overwhelming that it was actual. There are others that do not believe that the appearance of design is actual at all. However, they do so due to their own opinions and not on scientific reasoning.

You cannot show where, can you?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7847429-56/#post66538825

Post #552.

The consensus of the experts you have cited conclude that the appearance of design is an illusion. Do you agree with that?

I have said no and why.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

What is illogical is when someone claims that scientific evidence is faulty if it points to God.

1. You don't think the universe "looks" designed anyway.

Why do you feel it doesn't look designed? You offer no scientific evidence to counter that the universe does indeed appear designed due to the fact that the values in it are fine tuned for life to exist.

2. They support my position in that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist. That it appears designed. Those are two valid and documented points in my position which they support.

You have just ignored my last post to you. I would like you to back up what you are saying. Please provide evidence to support your position. How they destroy my position for starters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

In case you are unaware, this is a forum that discusses creation/evolution and there is a broad line of topics here that are disagreed with. Why would I agree to disagree?

First of all you disagree without bases for that disagreement. You have countered everything I've presented scientifically with just opinion.

The scientists in this field do confirm two positions that I am claiming. That the universe is fine tuned and that it appears designed. That is what they confirm in my position and why they are relevant to it. That they conclude something different from that scientific observation is opinion as well. The data is separate from their conclusions that design is not actual. They have no data that would determine scientifically that the appearance of design is not actual and they don't claim to.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Judging by the posting pattern of the poster in question, agreeing to disagree is not an option, because it would be the equivalent of a defeat. They must continue to repeat the same mantra over and over again, because it serves a purpose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

It's an observation that requires an explanation. It doesn't suggest an explanation. You just like to pretend it does.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps if some of us were able to remove the imaginary God from the equation it would all sort itself out.

You are in a forum that is about God. If you wish to "remove" God then perhaps you are in the wrong place?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We don't just see "appearances" of patterns of similarities in organisms.

We don't just see "appearances" of fine tuning either. We observe very specific phenomena that show life exists due to them.

Instead, we observe actual patterns called nested hierarchies. They don't "appear" to be there. The are there.

The values are actual measurements and they are life permitting or we wouldn't be here to observe them. They are real and they are fine tuned to allow for life to exist.

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.

So? I know that there are the tests and experiments that astrophysicists use to determine their theories as well. Quantum physic for one.

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.

So you stack the deck as to make an ID impossible to contemplate. You have no reason to assume that evolution without an intelligent designer is possible. To say that it is viable and sufficient is not evidence that it could not have needed God to begin with. So what evidence would you accept to claim that God was necessary?

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?

Why should science determine a priori that God is not necessary? Why should a naturalistic system which only studies natural phenomena have anything to say at all about God?

We are not "required" to believe a designer is involved due to our religious beliefs. There are those that believe that evolution stands on its own even with their religious beliefs. Regardless, if you wish to know about the natural world the best method is science. IF you want truth, that might not be the case. There are many things in life that might be true but can not be proven by scientific method.

99% of all proposed ideas in science are wrong.

So what is to say what is right? If tomorrow something arose that falsified evolution what would you say then?

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.

Some stand, but what if tomorrow they didn't?

It's called "learning". In the words of Dr Krauss: "some people would rather read an ancient book, instead of learning".

Learning is valuable and necessary. Some people may rather read an ancient book but few I feel would do so instead of learning.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

So is it about science and nothing but science and creation can take a hike?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That depends on what creates that appearance.

Yes. And the appearance itself doesn't hint at what that is.

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

You have to have knowledge of all factors to be able to determine the probability. In this case, we don't have that knowledge. So we can dismiss the idea that it is "impossible by chance" at face value.

and appears to have been created by an intent of an agent for a purpose that appearance does support the actual.

Since the "impossible by chance" bit was invalid and based on ignorance, we can safely reject this particular part of your post as being an argument from ignorance.

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.

Unfalsifiable, unsupported, unverifiable things are never valid explanations for anything at all.

 

[bhsmte]

So is it about science and nothing but science and creation can take a hike?

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't just see "appearances" of fine tuning either. We observe very specific phenomena that show life exists due to them.

Why does a narrow range of constants needed for life point to design?

You have no reason to assume that evolution without an intelligent designer is possible.

All of the evidence we have shows that the mechanisms of evolution are adequate for the differences we see. What evidence do you have for an intelligent designer acting on life?

Why should science determine a priori that God is not necessary?

It doesn't determine that a priori. If you want to claim that God is involved in a process, then it is up to you to present evidence of God being involved in that process.

So what is to say what is right?

Evidence. Facts. Reason.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see you are not really interested in my answers.

Of course I am interested in your answers. That's why I am asking you questions. The problem is that you dodge those questions.

Why does finding life in a universe capable of producing life point to a designer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Who determines what is objective and how it relates to the science of creationism?

Those that demonstrate an ability to use that evidence to rationally test ideas.

So in your estimation there is no science in creationism and you win by default.

Show us scientific papers that use the scientific method to directly test for the actions of God. Show us current scientific research programs that are running experiments to produce positive evidence for God. Or do none of these things exist?

The system of science is to study the natural world.

You claim that God interacts with the natural world which would allow us to study God's actions with science.

Science is a very valid operation, however, it is not the decider of truth or does it speak to the supernatural.

What supernatural? Evidence please.

Why would science need to address something that you can't even demonstrate to exist?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

The evidence for evolution is there and available for all to see.

If you are claiming there is evidence to support creation and or ID, that would be up to you to present the same.

Some real smart people have tried to show why ID is a viable hypothesis, but they have all fallen woefully short, by scientific standards and scientific standards are also there for all to see and the same for any claim.

To me, you run into trouble, because you can't make the leap of declaring you believe whatever it is you believe (hard to determine sometimes) based on faith. You insist you have evidence, then you back off of that claim, only to return to it again, then back off it again. One can get dizzy watching this in action.