Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Dizredux]

Diz, I have asked varied groups of people to assess the situation. I have been supported in my own assessment that it was not me being dishonest in the conversation.

I clearly said that I did not think you were being dishonest.

I present my positions in the best way I can and to say I am confused in my thinking is pretty presumptuous don't you think?

We have been over this many times. I feel that to say that the appearance of design either implies or supports the fact of design indicates confusion in thinking.

As earlier, some feel you have the appearance of being dishonest. Does this imply or support your being dishonest?

I think not but the same applies to your general direction of argument, that some see the appearance of design in the universe as implying or supporting the fact of design.

If this is valid thinking then we would have to say that the perceived appearance of dishonesty supports or implies the fact of dishonesty on your part.

You can't have it both ways.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like who?

Are you expecting me to give names or something?

 

[lasthero]

Are you expecting me to give names or something?

It'd be nice. Is that a problem?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I clearly said that I did not think you were being dishonest.

Indeed you did but this (the bold,underlined) is what I was responding to:
Originally Posted by Dizredux

I really and truly don't think Once is dishonest. I do feel she is confused in her thinking though and this is a factor.

Once I have to ask you, several people have said you have the appearance of being dishonest. Do you think this is support for your actually being so? I don't but this is a question you really need to look carefully within yourself for answers. Emphasis mine.


​

We have been over this many times. I feel that to say that the appearance of design either implies or supports the fact of design indicates confusion in thinking.

Yes, you have. I disagree. You yourself have said that it could possibly be actual design but we have no way of confirming that. IF there is a possibility of actual design the appearance supports that possibility. Logic agrees:

1. Things that have been designed have an appearance of design. Such as cars, computers or airplanes.
2. The universe has the appearance of design.
3. IF God designed the universe and in Christian theology HE claims the universe is evidence for Him, then the universe would appear designed.
4. The universe appears to be designed so it could possibly be designed as is claimed in Christian theology.

As earlier, some feel you have the appearance of being dishonest. Does this imply or support your being dishonest?

It could be said it supported that I was dishonest. However, those who are not emotionally bound to the conversation agree that I don't appear dishonest. Regardless, behavior is not on the same level as the fine tuning of the universe and has no scientific testable value. There is no way to determine if someone is honest or dishonest excluding a lie detector test which can be somewhat helpful.

I think not but the same applies to your general direction of argument, that some see the appearance of design in the universe as implying or supporting the fact of design.

If this is valid thinking then we would have to say that the perceived appearance of dishonesty supports or implies the fact of dishonesty on your part.

You can't have it both ways.

See above. The problem with your thinking is that you do not factor in that there is a truth to be known. Appearance of design is either actual or an illusion which is what I have always maintained. I am either honest or dishonest and I know the truth because I can know if there is deceit in my statements. So the possibility exists that I am dishonest but the truth is one or the other. IF in my life I am a completely honest person and others know this personally, they know that I don't lie and that I act with integrity I can say that I am viewed as a very honest person and people have described me as such in my work and home life.

Remember that appearance of design is something that you have agreed is either an illusion or actual.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It'd be nice. Is that a problem?

Yes, it would be a problem.

Why would you want them?

 

[lasthero]

Yes, it would be a problem.

Why would you want them?

To substantiate your claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To substantiate your claim.

I will let those on the forum that I asked to substantiate my word if they so wish. OF those I asked which did not have a chance to give me an assessment of my honesty would also be grouped with the ones that have concluded that I was acting in an honest way which would be unfair to them since they have not been able to voice an opinion. I will not give names because that would be very unfair of me to do. OF those off the forum, names would be useless to you and would not substantiate anything to you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To substantiate your claim.

I state myself as an individual that supports the idea that Oncedeceived is not a dishonest person, and relatively speaking is intelligent to converse with, even though we disagree on many things. Do I think some of her arguments are illogical? Yes, but I thouroughly believe that she thinks anything she posts makes perfect sense and is true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I state myself as an individual that supports the idea that Oncedeceived is not a dishonest person, and relatively speaking is intelligent to converse with, even though we disagree on many things. Do I think some of her arguments are illogical? Yes, but I thouroughly believe that she thinks anything she posts makes perfect sense and is true.

Thank you Sarah, that means a lot to me because you are a person that I feel is very honest and fair minded even if you disagree with someone.

 

[Dizredux]

OD

Originally Posted by Dizredux View Post

I clearly said that I did not think you were being dishonest.

OD

Indeed you did but this (the bold,underlined) is what I was responding to: Originally Posted by Dizredux

I really and truly don't think Once is dishonest. I do feel she is confused in her thinking though and this is a factor.

Once I have to ask you, several people have said you have the appearance of being dishonest. Do you think this is support for your actually being so? I don't but this is a question you really need to look carefully within yourself for answers. Emphasis mine.

Diz

We have been over this many times. I feel that to say that the appearance of design either implies or supports the fact of design indicates confusion in thinking.

OD

Yes, you have. I disagree. You yourself have said that it could possibly be actual design but we have no way of confirming that. IF there is a possibility of actual design the appearance supports that possibility. Logic agrees:

That someone sees signs of design implies the possibility of design but not necessarily design. This is what I have been trying to get across to you.

1. Things that have been designed have an appearance of design. Such as cars, computers or airplanes.

2. The universe has the appearance of design.

This is where you run into problems. You state that the universe has the appearance of design as if it is a fact without doing anything to support this. Just to say the universe appears to be fine tuned is laying one appearance on top of another. I asked you for several ways of supporting this including a working definition of appearance of design so others could measure and determine is this appearance was repeatable and observable. You did not address this. So far all you can accurately say is that some think the universe has the appearance of design and some don't.

The same for fine tuning. Some people feel there are indications that the universe is fine tuned for life or something but some don't. Again you need to provide some operational definitions of fine tuning so others can look at it objectively and see how the evidence supports the hypothesis of fine tuning.

3. IF God designed the universe and in Christian theology HE claims the universe is evidence for Him, then the universe would appear designed.

Yes and if God did not design the universe it still would most likely look the same. So the way the universe looks can support either or neither.

4. The universe appears to be designed so it could possibly be designed as is claimed in Christian theology.

If indeed you could support the appearance of design you would be hitting on all cylinders-"it could possibly be designed." You cannot rule out the existence or influence of God in relation to the universe but you also cannot rule it in either.

Diz

As earlier, some feel you have the appearance of being dishonest. Does this imply or support your being dishonest?

OD

It could be said it supported that I was dishonest.

No, it supported that fact that some felt you were, a totally different thing.

However, those who are not emotionally bound to the conversation agree that I don't appear dishonest.

Oh? Can you provide some back up for this. You seem to be trying to dismiss those who feel you do appear to be dishonest and accept those who don't. All are in some way emotionally bound to the conversation otherwise they would not post.

Regardless, behavior is not on the same level as the fine tuning of the universe and has no scientific testable value.

The idea that the appearance of something is support for its existence is no difference in either case. Don't try to evade by making exceptions for the arguments you don't like. You tend to do this whether or not you realize it. The reasoning is the same.

There is no way to determine if someone is honest or dishonest excluding a lie detector test which can be somewhat helpful.

Has nothing to do with the issue.

Diz

I think not but the same applies to your general direction of argument, that some see the appearance of design in the universe as implying or supporting the fact of design.

If this is valid thinking then we would have to say that the perceived appearance of dishonesty supports or implies the fact of dishonesty on your part.

You can't have it both ways.

OD

See above. The problem with your thinking is that you do not factor in that there is a truth to be known.

Is that a truth with capital letters or small ones. Science does not deal with "truths" so this is irrelevant in this situation.

OD

Appearance of design is either actual or an illusion which is what I have always maintained.

No, sometimes it is a simple mistake. Watch dichotomies, they seldom work.

OD

I am either honest or dishonest as there are many shades of appearance of design.

Oh there are many shades of honest and dishonest. Again watch for dichotomies.

OD

and I know the truth because I can know if there is deceit in my statements.

Sometimes people are dishonest with themselves to support a deep held belief.

OD

So the possibility exists that I am dishonest but the truth is one or the other.

Back to dichotomies again.

OD

IF in my life I am a completely honest person and others know this personally, they know that I don't lie and that I act with integrity I can say that I am viewed as a very honest person and people have described me as such in my work and home life.

I think you are and this this why I said I did not feel you were being dishonest but you can be wrong and in any kind of examination self or otherwise this must be kept in mind or the danger of going astray is real and probable.

Remember that appearance of design is something that you have agreed is either an illusion or actual.

I would like to have a cite on this as this is not the way I would have phrased it as I am aware of shades of the subject. For this reason I would like to see what I actually said.

Once if you say that the appearance of design indicates the possibility of design I would agree. There is no way that it implies or supports the fact of design.

To keep asserting this seems to drive you into mental gymnastics that gets you a lot of negative feedback on the forum.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you Sarah, that means a lot to me because you are a person that I feel is very honest and fair minded even if you disagree with someone.

There are enough people on here who are liars that sometimes make the mistake of biting off more than they can chew with me. Claims that they will have god send me very specific dreams, or that a deity truly responds to their prayers. They never stick around long enough for me to disprove them, they know the game is over when I make specific requests for shows of power.

Others, in far bigger numbers, are the scammed, who were more gullible than eye and thought they witnessed actual miracles rather than parlor tricks.

Even more still will try to warp anything they see to fit their religion

And then we move on to more moderate people such as yourself, who try to use the bible in a non literal sense, integrating teachings and observations together. Some people aren't so good at it and look really crazy or foolish, but a small number such as yourself do it in a very reasonable manner. Is it done well enough to convince me? Probably not, but I still respect the perspective. I wish more people approached religion as you do.

In any case, if you were a liar or a fool, you would have made it apparent by now.

 

[bhsmte]

I state myself as an individual that supports the idea that Oncedeceived is not a dishonest person, and relatively speaking is intelligent to converse with, even though we disagree on many things. Do I think some of her arguments are illogical? Yes, but I thouroughly believe that she thinks anything she posts makes perfect sense and is true.

In general, I would agree with this.

I don't see once as someone who intentionally is lying. I see once as, someone (who for whatever reason) can not settle on; I believe on faith, but needs to convince herself, that she is being objective in reaching her conclusions. This effort which is really; reach conclusion first, then seek out evidence to support it, is what gets her in trouble. It creates, the classical self confirming behaviors you typically see, when you start with a conclusion and it must be confirmed at all costs.

IMO, it does create a debating style which is evasive, selective and filled with double standards and the same has been pointed out by some on this board. To me, that is not an honest way of communicating, but I do not believe once seeks to be dishonest, it happens to be a byproduct of her strong desire to fulfill objective support she feels she needs to have.

 

[Davian]

...
It could be said it supported that I was dishonest. However, those who are not emotionally bound to the conversation agree that I don't appear dishonest. Regardless, behavior is not on the same level as the fine tuning of the universe and has no scientific testable value. There is no way to determine if someone is honest or dishonest excluding a lie detector test which can be somewhat helpful.

The "fine tuning of the universe" has no testable value. It is opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

That all being said, I do appreciate that there are those of you that don't agree with me in my positions (Sarah, Diz and bhmte) but do believe that I am not being dishonest.

Dishonesty occurs when you duck questions and use false equivalencies. It isn't a matter of disagreement, but one of avoiding facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that you don't call any evidence supportive of my claims.

Evidence and support are synonyms in this context. This is what I mean by using a false equivalency. You want to claim that your arguments are supported while avoiding requests for evidence. I consider that a very shady way to have a discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In general, I would agree with this.

I don't see once as someone who intentionally is lying. I see once as, someone (who for whatever reason) can not settle on; I believe on faith, but needs to convince herself, that she is being objective in reaching her conclusions. This effort which is really; reach conclusion first, then seek out evidence to support it, is what gets her in trouble. It creates, the classical self confirming behaviors you typically see, when you start with a conclusion and it must be confirmed at all costs.

In one way you are correct, I know that God exists and so that is the shooting off point in all my discussions. That is the one absolute known element in my debates. When you do have knowledge of God, you do see the world in that light. How would you not? It is not a matter of being unable to settle on faith, or having to convince others about my objectivity but to show others that it is not just based on faith alone and that there is objective evidence from science that supports a rational conclusion if one is open enough to see it.

IMO, it does create a debating style which is evasive, selective and filled with double standards and the same has been pointed out by some on this board. To me, that is not an honest way of communicating, but I do not believe once seeks to be dishonest, it happens to be a byproduct of her strong desire to fulfill objective support she feels she needs to have.

The way I see your posts is that you are not really here to communicate but to lend support for the atheist view and work your psychological assessments into the discussions of others. I don't know what your motivation is but it seems to be a rather strong one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence and support are synonyms in this context. This is what I mean by using a false equivalency. You want to claim that your arguments are supported while avoiding requests for evidence. I consider that a very shady way to have a discussion.

I have given evidence from scientists in the field which are in agreement that the universe appears designed due to the incredible necessity of the constants of the universe to allow for the evolution of life. I have even posted at other times what those are and the measurements of them. That data is the objective part of the equation. That is the objective evidence of a fine tuned universe that is set up or fixed to allow intelligent life as we know to evolve on the earth. It appears to be no accident that they are set up in such a way, it is not by chance nor necessity and has the appearance that it was designed in that way.

 

[bhsmte]

In one way you are correct, I know that God exists and so that is the shooting off point in all my discussions. That is the one absolute known element in my debates. When you do have knowledge of God, you do see the world in that light. How would you not? It is not a matter of being unable to settle on faith, or having to convince others about my objectivity but to show others that it is not just based on faith alone and that there is objective evidence from science that supports a rational conclusion if one is open enough to see it.

I think where the problem comes in once, is you needing to convince yourself, you have objective verifiable evidence to know God exists and or you have objective evidence that appearance of design supports design. Unlike other believers on this board, who have no problem stating; I believe what I do on faith and I realize, I am not relying on verifiable objective evidence in my beliefs. This for you, appears to be a road you can't go down and you expend quite a bit of energy, avoiding it. This is where you get into trouble when challenged and questioned on what you declare as; objectivity.

The way I see your posts is that you are not really here to communicate but to lend support for the atheist view and work your psychological assessments into the discussions of others. I don't know what your motivation is but it seems to be a rather strong one.

As I have stated before, I am here to have intellectual discussions, which are more intriguing with people who may have differing views and also more stimulating. You may also notice, I post on a variety of topics on this board, besides creation/evolution and highly charged religious topics. Also, I am very interested in psychology and have psychologist friends, who actually frequent these boards and we discuss our thoughts on the behaviors of posters. I do find that fascinating and very stimulating, to peel back the layers of human behavior. You may also notice, that I take no issue with believers and get along with them just fine, when they claim they believe what they do on faith. I never question what one claims to be a faith belief, unless; they claim they are better than me because of their belief, claim to have objective evidence to support their belief and or misrepresent science in their personal endeavor to self substantiate their belief. If that occurs, I question and you learn by asking questions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I have stated before, I am here to have intellectual discussions, which are more intriguing with people who may have differing views and also more stimulating. You may also notice, I post on a variety of topics on this board, besides creation/evolution and highly charged religious topics. Also, I am very interested in psychology and have psychologist friends, who actually frequent these boards and we discuss our thoughts on the behaviors of posters. I do find that fascinating and very stimulating, to peel back the layers of human behavior. You may also notice, that I take no issue with believers and get along with them just fine, when they claim they believe what they do on faith. I never question what one claims to be a faith belief, unless; they claim they are better than me because of their belief, claim to have objective evidence to support their belief and or misrepresent science in their personal endeavor to self substantiate their belief. If that occurs, I question and you learn by asking questions.

Are you angry bshmte? Why did you feel the need to use bolding here? Do you find it uncomfortable when someone sees fault in you? Why does certainty in God make you so uncomfortable? Have I ever once claimed that I was better than you due to my belief? How have I misrepresented Science for my "personal endeavor" to substantiate my belief?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have given evidence from scientists in the field which are in agreement that the universe appears designed due to the incredible necessity of the constants of the universe to allow for the evolution of life.

As already discussed, appearance is not evidence.

I have even posted at other times what those are and the measurements of them.

Posting measurements is not evidence.

It appears to be no accident that they are set up in such a way, it is not by chance nor necessity and has the appearance that it was designed in that way.

Appearance is not evidence.