Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

Show me one that has evidence that a designer tuned anything.

So I will assume that your only counter to my position is to twist it and create a straw man argument. Noted.

Otherwise, all you have is the tautological statement that life exists in a universe capable of supporting life.

Well you are most certainly able to deny all the scientific data and ignore what the scientists claim to make such a simplistic statement but it does nothing to eliminate the actual evidence and data involved.

They have data to back up that the universe is capable of supporting life, which we already knew. They have no data showing that it had to be fine tuned by a deity in order to be that way.

Again, if you must twist my claims to argue against them then you defeat your position by default.

 

[Davian]

I am not claiming actual design.

You are claiming the possibility that the universe was designed; this remains unsubstantiated, and as you conceded, unfalsifiable.

 

[Davian]

Indeed. The bible gives us a very accurate view of the world.

Nice drawing.

Well, you are either a bible literalist, or you are not.

Haeckel is alive and well on Planet Earth, isn't he?

Perhaps he can draw you a picture of a red herring.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps he can draw you a picture of a red herring.

Does he do self-portraits too?

(Or is that what his drawing was?)

 

[Loudmouth]

I am basing my assertion on the fact that there is an established finding of fine tuning of the universe which Davian seems not to have grasped.

No scientist claims that a designer fine tuned the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

So I will assume that your only counter to my position is to twist it and create a straw man argument.

No, that would be your entire argument. You are arguing that the universe was tuned by a designer.

Well you are most certainly able to deny all the scientific data and ignore what the scientists claim to make such a simplistic statement but it does nothing to eliminate the actual evidence and data involved.

What actual evidence demonstrating that a designer tuned the universe?

The only evidence you have shown is that the universe is capable of supporting life, which we already knew.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just as there is an appearance of a face on Mars. Just as there is an appearance of bunnies in clouds.

You can continue to deny what the scientists claim, it is anyone's choice what they will accept and won't. However, you being a person who claims that science is necessary to determine what we know you are letting your own personal biases blind you to that scientific argument.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole. The odds of a universe existing that can sustain life is 1 in 1, because it happened.

You are not actually looking at all the features that come into play for that 1 in 1 odds. That is like having a deck of cards and you turn over the 7 of clubs and claim that the probability of drawing a 7 of clubs is 1 in 1. It doesn't take into account the other cards just as with you not taking into account all the other elements that are known.

Appearance is not support for design, as we have already shown you multiple times.

You have not shown that at all. Stomping your foot and yelling that it isn't support to design does not an argument make.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What?

I keep mentioning the appearance of design because it is a claim that astrophysicists make. It is baked by data that is scientific rather than philosophical.

1. You recognize that it isn't evidence for anything in and of itself
2. This is a scientific debate, thus evidence is the most important thing to have to support your position
3. We have come to somewhat of an agreement that the evidence we have isn't conclusive.

Therefore, why do you keep mentioning that some people made a shallow remark that the universe looked designed, those same people later concluding that the universe wasn't designed, as if this is somehow relevant?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No scientist claims that a designer fine tuned the universe.

That is absolutely false. There are plenty of scientists that claim that a designer fine tuned the universe. They don't claim that it is scientifically known however and neither do I.

I am not claiming that scientist claim that a designer fine tuned the universe and by continuing to twist my words and my claims make it evident that you have no real argument against the scientific claims and you are left with straw men arguments.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can continue to deny what the scientists claim,

I don't deny that our universe is capable of supporting life.

You are not actually looking at all the features that come into play for that 1 in 1 odds. That is like having a deck of cards and you turn over the 7 of clubs and claim that the probability of drawing a 7 of clubs is 1 in 1.

After the fact, it is 1 in 1, because it happened. All you are demonstrating is that you don't understand how probability calculations work.

Why don't we do the whole deck? Shuffle the deck. Deal out one card at a time, face up. The order of cards you have just dealt has a probability of 1 in 52!, or 1 in 1 x 10^67. According to you, the order of cards you have just dealt face up is fine tuned because the odds of that order occuring are extremely improbable. According to you, you shouldn't be able to deal 52 cards face up because each and every result is too improbable.

You have not shown that at all.

You admit it yourself. You have said multiple times that it is not evidence. If it isn't evidence, then it doesn't support design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is absolutely false. There are plenty of scientists that claim that a designer fine tuned the universe. They don't claim that it is scientifically known however and neither do I.

If any claim that on a non scientific basis, it means they claim it on belief, not evidence. Which isn't going to convince anyone

 

[Davian]

Does he do self-portraits too?

(Or is that what his drawing was?)

You are not a bible literalist?

 

[bhsmte]

No, that would be your entire argument. You are arguing that the universe was tuned by a designer.



What actual evidence demonstrating that a designer tuned the universe?

The only evidence you have shown is that the universe is capable of supporting life, which we already knew.

For the purpose of this argument, once is stating; she is not claiming the universe is designed. As she typically does, she dabs her foot in the water and then backs away when things get a bit too risky regarding exposure to supporting claims etc..

Now, I do believe she has made it clear in other posts and in other threads, that she does believe the universe was designed by a God and that is her personal belief. Of course, she can correct me on that if I am assuming wrong. And since she admits in this thread, there is no objective evidence the universe is designed, she obviously takes that belief on faith.

What she has done in this thread, is cling to scientists statements, that the universe has an appearance of design and claiming this would "support" design, even though these same scientists who make this statement, don't themselves believe the universe is designed and they explain why. This is really about self rationalization and clinging to whatever you can, to support your position, even if the same people you use, disagree with you in the end.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. You recognize that it isn't evidence for anything in and of itself

Oh? When did I recognize that?

2. This is a scientific debate, thus evidence is the most important thing to have to support your position

Which is there and is agreed upon by the scientists that research it.

3. We have come to somewhat of an agreement that the evidence we have isn't conclusive.

WE do? There is a group of highly educated scientists that feel differently.

Therefore, why do you keep mentioning that some people made a shallow remark that the universe looked designed, those same people later concluding that the universe wasn't designed, as if this is somehow relevant?

It isn't a shallow remark, it is what they call the fine tuning observation and its implications.

There are those who do feel that Design is a valid conclusion but one they don't personally accept.

 

[Loudmouth]

For the purpose of this argument, once is stating; she is not claiming the universe is designed.

And then she proclaims that the appearance of design does support the claim that the universe is designed.

It is about Oncedeceived using words that make it look like she has an evidenced claim when she really doesn't. It is an attempt to dress up her religious beliefs in the clothes of science in order to justify her beliefs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh? When did I recognize that?


Which is there and is agreed upon by the scientists that research it.


WE do? There is a group of highly educated scientists that feel differently.


It isn't a shallow remark, it is what they call the fine tuning observation and its implications.

There are those who do feel that Design is a valid conclusion but one they don't personally accept.

Do I need to fish out all the times that you acknowledged that these people never scientifically concluded the universe was designed? Why are you being so difficult right now, you are such an intelligent and reasonable person, why is this conversation going into such infinite circles?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If any claim that on a non scientific basis, it means they claim it on belief, not evidence. Which isn't going to convince anyone

And those that claim that it isn't real design are basing that on belief and not evidence as well.

The claim here is that there is truly an appearance of design and that is in need of an explanation. It is either design or natural. Those are the options. Appearance of design by values of the constants appearing to be tuned by design rather than chance supports more cohesively design over natural. That it supports design is obvious due to the many independent and codependent values that are required for life to exist.

 

[bhsmte]

And then she proclaims that the appearance of design does support the claim that the universe is designed.

It is about Oncedeceived using words that make it look like she has an evidenced claim when she really doesn't. It is an attempt to dress up her religious beliefs in the clothes of science in order to justify her beliefs.

I know that LM and I would think, the vast majority of the people that have read this thread, also know that.

This is about self rationalization of a faith belief, while at the same time not going in too deep where you will be exposed, because you can't support your claims.

This particular poster, seems to have difficulty admitting they believe certain things on faith alone and that is really where the problem comes in and then an effort to substantiate the faith beliefs, with something other than faith, takes priority.

The pattern is long established (for years) and will likely continue for years to come. It is what it is and it isn't going away.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do I need to fish out all the times that you acknowledged that these people never scientifically concluded the universe was designed?

No because it doesn't matter. That is there subjective opinion about the data that is being claimed by them that appears designed. The evidence points to design, they being scientists do not want to allow, science doesn't allow a supernatural explanation. Most would tell you that it is a valid conclusion but one they personally do not believe or will accept on either professional reasons or personal belief.

Why are you being so difficult right now, you are such an intelligent and reasonable person, why is this conversation going into such infinite circles?

I could say the same of you.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not a bible literalist?

Would you know it if I was?