Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Ok, maybe we can get somewhere here, ok? Look, humans have a natural inclination to think complicated entities are designed. It is an inborn bias that can be really hard to overcome. This perception of the universe being designed is a result of that bias, reinforced by many religious beliefs. However, again, not all complex entities are actually designed in any measurable sense, and since many existing items deviate from the initial observation, you can't rely upon these surface observations. You can't distinguish things that look designed because they are designed, and those which simply are of equal or greater complexity to items you associate with design

 

[bhsmte]

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?

Clearly, she can't get herself to admit, she believes the universe was designed by a God based on faith.

 

[bhsmte]

Would you know it if I was?

Your signature and posts are a pretty good clue.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Would you know it if I was?

You aren't subtle about it

 

[Oncedeceived]

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



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.

I've read this have you? Interpretations of Probability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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.

I am not a mathematician. I use only those that specialize in it to make my arguments. Perhaps you should do some research yourself if you don't see the faulty logic that you are using when you use 1 in 1 odds.

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.

It is evidence and it supports design and I've always said that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Do you know what reasons they use to claim the appearance is not actual design?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, frank explanation time:

1. None of the people you are debating against consider the comments "the universe looks designed" to be evidence for design
2. Even if you do consider it evidence, for those of us who don't, it has 0 impact
3. By now, you surely must realize that what you consider evidence is not something the rest of us do, and we have explained why we don't.
4. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you should cease mentioning it, if for no other reason than the fact it isn't moving the debate along. You aren't going to be able to change our minds about the nature of your "evidence".

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

What it looks like to many is that you all will accept Scientific evidence as long as it supports your own worldviews and will not that which doesn't. You wrap yourselves up in Science until that Science supports something you don't want to believe. It is hypocritical of those who claim that science is the only way to know the world and then deny it if you don't like it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You aren't subtle about it

Ahem ... um ... my point in asking that was:

One first has to understand how a literalist thinks first.

In other words: yes, I'm a literalist, but that doesn't mean I have to concur with that picture.

The drawer of that picture [purposely?] overlooks synonyms.

(Example: firmament = heaven.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

What it looks like to many is that you all will accept Scientific evidence as long as it supports your own worldviews and will not that which doesn't. You wrap yourselves up in Science until that Science supports something you don't want to believe. It is hypocritical of those who claim that science is the only way to know the world and then deny it if you don't like it.

You know that isn't true about me, I have been seeking faith for years, what possible reason would I have to dismiss actual evidence for design, something I would love to have? It would be like being handed an ice cream on a hot day, and immediately throwing it in the garbage even though you wanted it and didn't care about calories

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, frank explanation time:

1. None of the people you are debating against consider the comments "the universe looks designed" to be evidence for design
2. Even if you do consider it evidence, for those of us who don't, it has 0 impact
3. By now, you surely must realize that what you consider evidence is not something the rest of us do, and we have explained why we don't.
4. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you should cease mentioning it, if for no other reason than the fact it isn't moving the debate along. You aren't going to be able to change our minds about the nature of your "evidence".

Oh I see. You don't understand the issue and it is evident that many of you don't but you don't care because you all agree and you all agree because you all hold to the non-theistic worldview that God is not real. You don't care if your arguments are straw men arguments that deny actual scientific data and terms that scientists themselves have labeled the observations.

What I realize, and I might add is very evident is that people on here take issue when they use science as their defining authority but then deny the same when it doesn't conform to their own personal beliefs. Isn't that what you all charge creationists with? POT KETTLE BLACK.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you know what reasons they use to claim the appearance is not actual design?

Couple biggies:

-No way to identify and test for design, in a falsifiable manner
-With the above, no objective verifiable evidence exists, the universe was designed.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know that isn't true about me, I have been seeking faith for years,

Seeking it from whom? Yahweh?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh I see. You don't understand the issue and it is evident that many of you don't but you don't care because you all agree and you all agree because you all hold to the non-theistic worldview that God is not real. You don't care if your arguments are straw men arguments that deny actual scientific data and terms that scientists themselves have labeled the observations.

What I realize, and I might add is very evident is that people on here take issue when they use science as their defining authority but then deny the same when it doesn't conform to their own personal beliefs. Isn't that what you all charge creationists with? POT KETTLE BLACK.

No no no no no, I despise being atheist and you know it, I have no reason to try to deny evidence I could percieve as valid. I just don't view what you present as evidence being such. How hard is this to understand, I view such observations of the universe as the result of a bias our species is prone to.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh I see. You don't understand the issue and it is evident that many of you don't but you don't care because you all agree and you all agree because you all hold to the non-theistic worldview that God is not real. You don't care if your arguments are straw men arguments that deny actual scientific data and terms that scientists themselves have labeled the observations.

What I realize, and I might add is very evident is that people on here take issue when they use science as their defining authority but then deny the same when it doesn't conform to their own personal beliefs. Isn't that what you all charge creationists with? POT KETTLE BLACK.

Couple quick and simple questions once, that will help clear things up for me at least:

-Is it your belief, that the universe was designed by a God?
-If yes to above, do you believe this on faith?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know that isn't true about me, I have been seeking faith for years, what possible reason would I have to dismiss actual evidence for design, something I would love to have? It would be like being handed an ice cream on a hot day, and immediately throwing it in the garbage even though you wanted it and didn't care about calories

Sarah, your problem comes from not understanding the concept of fine tuning and the scientific data that points to design from that. All the scientists that agree that the fine tuning observations look designed not because they want to but because that is what fits with what they are finding. What they conclude from that is that it needs explanation. The explanation from scientists needs a natural scientific nature to be science. It is not unusual for that to be the case for numerous reasons. Regardless, even those who are Christians and believe this is evidence of true design know that for Science to continue is to look further and see where it take them. You must understand that at least.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seeking it from whom? Yahweh?

For a while you'd probably would consider me legitimately seeking that god actually. I was once a member of a Baptist church. In fact, that was the first church I became a member of; that being the denomination of the first important figure in my life to die.

 

[AV1611VET]

No no no no no, I despise being atheist and you know it,

I've got a friend who despises being fat.

He won't exercise, but he despises being fat.

He wants me to feel sorry for him, and I'm not going to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No no no no no, I despise being atheist and you know it, I have no reason to try to deny evidence I could percieve as valid. I just don't view what you present as evidence being such. How hard is this to understand, I view such observations of the universe as the result of a bias our species is prone to.

But Sarah if you really really wanted the facts you would be researching it right now and not have already decided what you believe. Don't you see that? You wouldn't rest until you looked at what the issue really is about. I don't see you doing that, I see you looking at one link I gave you and turning away. That doesn't convince me that you are really open to the possibility of evidence that points to God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, your problem comes from not understanding the concept of fine tuning and the scientific data that points to design from that. All the scientists that agree that the fine tuning observations look designed not because they want to but because that is what fits with what they are finding. What they conclude from that is that it needs explanation. The explanation from scientists needs a natural scientific nature to be science. It is not unusual for that to be the case for numerous reasons. Regardless, even those who are Christians and believe this is evidence of true design know that for Science to continue is to look further and see where it take them. You must understand that at least.

Sure, but a designer isn't the only plausible explanation for the universe appearing designed to some people, so I am going to need more than that to make any conclusions. As it stands, there just isn't enough to do that with. It might need an explanation, but no explanation has won out in the evidence department yet, so it would be biased to conclude anything before we know more. I could never comfortably make a conclusion based just on what we have now