Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

Ah, Once's famous "So" at work.

Really Diz, you are resorting to personal jabs as argumentation so much that it is hard to separate you from the unbelievers on this board.

No, at least with me, it is the idea that the appearance of design implies or supports design-It doesn't and I truly believe your thinking is more than a bit muddled on this.

Dizredux[/quote]

No, you are clearly arguing against the appearance of design, not that the appearance of design denotes design.

You said: OK how about some operational definitions so we can measure the appearance of design. How do we determine that something has the appearance of design or not. How do we determine that appearance is valid or not? How can more than one person measure it and come to the same conclusion? This is how science works. These questions and others have to be answered before we can say it is objective.

Your words belie your position that you just have problems with appearance being actual design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Two separate issues; yourself and what you claim scientists state. I have been very clear on my observations of your specific debate tactics and those observations have not changed.

So lets move to what you claim scientists state. You say, they have "objectively" determined that the universe "appears" designed.

Please provide support from these scientists that states specifically, they "objectively" determined the appearance of this design, which would mean, they must possess, some form of verifiable test to make that determination.

Lastly, the fact that these same scientists that you hold tightly to, disagree with your own conclusions just strengthens my premise, that you will latch onto any tid bit, to maintain your confirmation bias.

To give you an analogy, that would be like going to a doctor to have a growth examined on your skin. The doctor looks at the appearance of the growth and states; this does not appear to be cancerous. The doctor takes a biopsy of the growth and sends it to the lab and the test comes back positive for cancer. You then decide, I am going to ignore the results of the biopsy and go with the doctors initial opinion based on appearance.

I claimed that Davies claims that there is a consensus with scientists that the universe appears designed. If you take issue with that, take it up with him.

 

[Loudmouth]

So Diz, Loudmouth and bshmte your problem isn't with me but with the scientists that do claim the universe appears designed.

Notice how you left off the "objective" part.

 

[Loudmouth]

I claimed that Davies claims that there is a consensus with scientists that the universe appears designed.

You claimed that the appearance of design was objective. Can you please cite Davies saying that the appearance of design is objective.

 

[bhsmte]

I claimed that Davies claims that there is a consensus with scientists that the universe appears designed. If you take issue with that, take it up with him.

I have no issue with the "appearance" piece, but you knew that already, didn't you?

More games I see. Reread my last post, for more clarity.

 

[lasthero]

Really Diz, you are resorting to personal jabs as argumentation so much that it is hard to separate you from the unbelievers on this board.

Maybe it's just my imagination, but you've really developed a real 'us vs. them' mentality as of late.

Personal jabs and snippy remarks are hardly the sole domain of the atheist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claimed that the appearance of design was objective. Can you please cite Davies saying that the appearance of design is objective.

The appearance of design is based upon data that shows the necessity and precision of the constants which appears fixed... or designed.

He doesn't say that they subjectively come to the conclusion, they come to the conclusion based on the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe it's just my imagination, but you've really developed a real 'us vs. them' mentality as of late.

Personal jabs and snippy remarks are hardly the sole domain of the atheist.

When I have been repeatedly told that I am dishonest and there are personal attacks towards me when I have done none of that to others (although if they do it to me I will sometimes respond in kind) makes me have that type of mentality.

 

[Loudmouth]

The appearance of design is based upon data that shows the necessity and precision of the constants which appears fixed... or designed.

And the objective part?

He doesn't say that they subjectively come to the conclusion, they come to the conclusion based on the evidence.

Where does he say that it is an objective conclusion?

If I surveyed most scientists, a majority would say that the pattern in the shower curtain appears to be Lenin, and that they came to that conclusion from the objective existence of that shower curtain and condensation. That doesn't make it an objective conclusion.

 

[Dizredux]

Really Diz, you are resorting to personal jabs as argumentation so much that it is hard to separate you from the unbelievers on this board.

You have a bad writing habit of starting out with the word "So" and then presenting something very different than what the writer intended or said. Several people have commented on this. It is not a personal jab but a style of writing one.

Diz

No, at least with me, it is the idea that the appearance of design implies or supports design-It doesn't and I truly believe your thinking is more than a bit muddled on this.

OD

No, you are clearly arguing against the appearance of design, not that the appearance of design denotes design.

Clearly? I have stated many times that I have no problem with something appearing designed. I have discussed the problems with saying or implying that the appearance of design implies or supports the actuality of design, it just doesn't follow. But that something "appears" or looks like it might be designed is not in the least problematic but that statement of appearance has to be backed up with evidence for it to have any scientific value.
That someone agrees with you that there may be an appearance of design is not support to conclude that it *is* designed. The more people who agree is support for the possibility but I am sorry but that does not establish that it is designed in any way.

I understand that you really want ID to be true and supported but as I have told you a number of times, your logic is off in this. That something looks like it is designed is no evidence that it is designed only that design is a possibility that needs to be ruled in or out, That is just the way it is in any logical format I can think of.

You said: OK how about some operational definitions so we can measure the appearance of design. How do we determine that something has the appearance of design or not. How do we determine that appearance is valid or not? How can more than one person measure it and come to the same conclusion? This is how science works. These questions and others have to be answered before we can say it is objective.

Your words belie your position that you just have problems with appearance being actual design.

How on earth do you get this? You assert that the appearance of design is objective. What I am asking is for you to support this in the usual way objective stances are supported.

Once, you truly do seem to becoming confused about all of this. I sometimes am a little concerned so take care of yourself.

Dizredux

 

[lasthero]

When I have been repeatedly told that I am dishonest and there are personal attacks towards me when I have done none of that to others (although if they do it to me I will sometimes respond in kind) makes me have that type of mentality.

Has it occurred to you that, maybe, the reason people keep calling you dishonest is that you post in such a way that you genuinely appear that way to them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the objective part?



Where does he say that it is an objective conclusion?

If I surveyed most scientists, a majority would say that the pattern in the shower curtain appears to be Lenin, and that they came to that conclusion from the objective existence of that shower curtain and condensation. That doesn't make it an objective conclusion.

So do you think that scientists that make their livelihood would agree that their consensus that the universe appears designed is as simplistic as condensation on a shower curtain?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Has it occurred to you that, maybe, the reason people keep calling you dishonest is that you post in such a way that you genuinely appear that way to them?

I've not rested on my own assessment.

 

[lasthero]

I've not rested on my own assessment.

This is kind of what I'm talking about, you have this way of not giving straight answers.

What do you mean?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is kind of what I'm talking about, you have this way of not giving straight answers.

What do you mean?

I mean I have had others assess whether or not they felt I was being dishonest in my answers.

 

[bhsmte]

Has it occurred to you that, maybe, the reason people keep calling you dishonest is that you post in such a way that you genuinely appear that way to them?

No, it must be a conspiracy.

 

[bhsmte]

I mean I have had others assess whether or not they felt I was being dishonest in my answers.

Who?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who?

A varied group of people.

 

[bhsmte]

This is kind of what I'm talking about, you have this way of not giving straight answers.

What do you mean?

To me at least, it appears once wants to put her foot in the water, but not go in the entire way. This way, she can state a position that matches her personal belief, yet be able to squirm out of challenges to that position by stating; she never made that claim.

If once would simply state; she believes in what she does on faith, I would never challenge her reasoning behind her faith position. Only when, claims are made of objectivity being involved, and or those who disagree with her are not using objectivity, is when I take issue with it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To me at least, it appears once wants to put her foot in the water, but not go in the entire way. This way, she can state a position that matches her personal belief, yet be able to squirm out of challenges to that position by stating; she never made that claim.

If once would simply state; she believes in what she does on faith, I would never challenge her reasoning behind her faith position. Only when, claims are made of objectivity being involved, and or those who disagree with her are not using objectivity, is when I take issue with it.

It is because that sits well with your own comfort level. You can dismiss without much effort a position based on faith but if there is any chance that there is objective evidence that support my position you have issues.