Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[PsychoSarah]

http://www.all-about-psychology.com/images/optical-illusions.jpg

 

[bhsmte]

I am claiming that I have evidence to support the universe is designed.

Why have you then stated; you are not claiming the universe is designed and you didn't claim to have evidence that it was?

To others on this thread, am I going insane here, or are we witnessing a bait and switch like none I have ever seen?

 

[Loudmouth]

To others on this thread, am I going insane here, or are we witnessing a bait and switch like none I have ever seen?

It's like catching a kid with their hand in the cookie jar, and their only defense is, "My hand wasn't in the cookie jar. It was in a piece of pottery that contained sweet baked goods."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why have you then stated; you are not claiming the universe is designed and you didn't claim to have evidence that it was?

To others on this thread, am I going insane here, or are we witnessing a bait and switch like none I have ever seen?

No, I am ultra confused too

 

[Davian]

No, that is not fine tuning that constants are constant. Once again it is apparent that you don't understand the concept.

That is false. The fine tuning is agreed upon by most those in the field and is substantiated by the data. I didn't say it wasn't.

Show your data that supports "tuning". That would be the data that you obtained for those other universes.

 

[Davian]

It's like catching a kid with their hand in the cookie jar, and their only defense is, "My hand wasn't in the cookie jar. It was in a piece of pottery that contained sweet baked goods."

Or guiding Charlie Chaplin through a revolving door...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWIopUcHBOg

 

[bhsmte]

Or guiding Charlie Chaplin through a revolving door...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWIopUcHBOg

Very appropriate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why have you then stated; you are not claiming the universe is designed and you didn't claim to have evidence that it was?

To others on this thread, am I going insane here, or are we witnessing a bait and switch like none I have ever seen?

The evidence supports the possibility of the universe being designed.

There are supportive evidences for all types of scientific endeavors.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence supports the possibility of the universe being designed.

Just like rainbows support the possibility of Leprechauns. You can make the same argument for any random object and any random deity/imaginary thing. Teeth support the possibility of the Tooth Fairy.

There are supportive evidences for all types of scientific endeavors.

"Supportive evidences" is redundant. They mean the same thing. When you say that the appearance of design supports actual design, you are saying that the appearance of designe evidences actual design. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING.

 

[bhsmte]

Just like rainbows support the possibility of Leprechauns. You can make the same argument for any random object and any random deity/imaginary thing. Teeth support the possibility of the Tooth Fairy.



"Supportive evidences" is redundant. They mean the same thing. When you say that the appearance of design supports actual design, you are saying that the appearance of designe evidences actual design. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING.

This whole thing is really comical at this point.

Nothing further here that interests me, you guys have fun with this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

belief based ideas are literally ones without scientific evidence to back them.

You are better than this!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REallly?

I made a claim that was not based on my belief. That claim is that the universe appears designed and that it is supportive of the notion that the universe was possibly designed.

I was asked a question that was not a part of that claim. I was asked what I "believed". They are two separate things and bshmte knew that when he asked. Now you take off on this neatly planned deflection too.

My belief is based on evidence and faith. The evidence of fine tuning supports my beliefs but stands alone and remains fine tuning whatever anyone believes.

This evidence supports design is possible.

The evidence of God in my life, the evidence of fine tuning all give my belief support. Yet, the fine tuning observation and the appearance of design is being recognized and agreed upon does not provide the answer of whether it is actual design or not. So my faith makes me believe that the universe was designed, just like the lack of belief makes others feel it was not.

The evidence for fine tuning and the appearance of design is not based on my faith or the lack thereof of the scientists that claim it. IT is a scientific observation based on data on the values of the universe that permits life to exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

I made a claim that was not based on my belief. That claim is that the universe appears designed and that it is supportive of the notion that the universe was possibly designed.

No, it isn't. The appearance of design does not evidence actual design.

My belief is based on evidence and faith.

Once you introduce faith, the evidence doesn't matter. You can point to all of the facts about rainbows you want, but as soon as you introduce a faith based belief in Leprechauns that make rainbows, all of those facts are meaningless.

The evidence of fine tuning supports my beliefs but stands alone and remains fine tuning whatever anyone believes.

The observation that our universe can support life does not evidence your faith based beliefs.

The evidence of God in my life, the evidence of fine tuning all give my belief support. Yet, the fine tuning observation and the appearance of design is being recognized and agreed upon does not provide the answer of whether it is actual design or not. So my faith makes me believe that the universe was designed, just like the lack of belief makes others fell it was not.

If it does not provide an answer, then it does not support the answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

http://www.all-about-psychology.com/images/optical-illusions.jpg

This is just showing the lack of understanding of what fine tuning observation is about.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is just showing the lack of understanding of what fine tuning observation is about.

It is about hindsight bias, as we have already covered.

"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it, prior to its occurrence."
Hindsight bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it isn't. The appearance of design does not evidence actual design.

It supports the possibility of design.

Once you introduce faith, the evidence doesn't matter. You can point to all of the facts about rainbows you want, but as soon as you introduce a faith based belief in Leprechauns that make rainbows, all of those facts are meaningless.

That would be true if I was making the claim that the universe was actually designed.

The observation that our universe can support life does not evidence your faith based beliefs.

I would agree, it is good that it not what I am claiming.

If it does not provide an answer, then it does not support the answer.

There was evidence to support the String theory, yet there was no answer to whether or not it was what was actual or not. The evidence supported that answer but now there is evidence that goes against it. Regardless, scientists claimed there was evidence to support it.

 

[Loudmouth]

It supports the possibility of design.

Just like teeth support the possibility of the Tooth Fairy.

"Supporting the possibility" means absolutely nothing. It is a throw away term.

That would be true if I was making the claim that the universe was actually designed.

You did make that claim. You continually stated that the appearance of design supports actual design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is about hindsight bias, as we have already covered.

"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it, prior to its occurrence."
Hindsight bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, this is really stretching even for you!

How could we predict the universe prior to its existence? We have scientific knowledge of what scientists call fine tuning which permits life to evolve. We wouldn't be here without that fine tuning to question whether it was actually designed or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just like teeth support the possibility of the Tooth Fairy.

"Supporting the possibility" means absolutely nothing. It is a throw away term.



You did make that claim. You continually stated that the appearance of design supports actual design.

So you are throwing away Scientific methodology. Do you really think that is a good idea?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are throwing away Scientific methodology.

You threw away scientific methodology when you made design unfalsifiable. No matter what the evidence is, you will claim that it "supports the possibility of design". Even evidence that exactly matches what we would expect from evolution, you proclaim that it supports design . . . because you say so.

 

[Loudmouth]

How could we predict the universe prior to its existence?

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me. You are looking back at what has already happened, and declaring that it was meant to happen that way from the start. That is hindsight bias.

We have scientific knowledge of what scientists call fine tuning which permits life to evolve. We wouldn't be here without that fine tuning to question whether it was actually designed or not.

Fine tuning means that there is a fine tuner. Where is the evidence for the tuner?