Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Loudmouth]

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?

I think they would agree that the appearance of design and the appearance of Lenin in the shower curtain are the same type of appearance. Afterall, their livelihood is made by going beyond appearances and looking for the actual processes involved.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

You don't have any objective evidence, and that doesn't sit well with you. That is why you have to use semantics to make it look like you have evidence when you don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think they would agree that the appearance of design and the appearance of Lenin in the shower curtain are the same type of appearance. Afterall, their livelihood is made by going beyond appearances and looking for the actual processes involved.

Which is what they based their consensus upon, the actual processes and measurements of the known universe.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Oh once, you never cease to amaze me.

If a person of faith states they believe on faith and don't make claims they can not support objectively, I never question their faith. That is a personal decision and may be the best thing for them.

I have issues with potential objective verifiable evidence to support your claims? Objective verifiable evidence speaks for itself and I have yet to see you produce any, to support what you say is an "objective" conclusion.

If you have some, please share.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is what they based their consensus upon, the actual processes and measurements of the known universe.

So is the Lenin face on the shower curtain. That doesn't make it objective.

 

[Dizredux]

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 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.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Dizredux

I don't think the poster tries to be dishonest, it would seem a need to feel they are using objectivity in their conclusions though, is so important to them, that it creates situations, where the poster is forced to scramble and that is when the issues start.

Some people can admit they believe something on faith and some can't. The one's who can't, are in constant overdrive, searching for anyway to convince themselves, they have objective evidence for their belief. This is what we have here, IMO.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh once, you never cease to amaze me.

If a person of faith states they believe on faith and don't make claims they can not support objectively, I never question their faith. That is a personal decision and may be the best thing for them.

I have issues with potential objective verifiable evidence to support your claims? Objective verifiable evidence speaks for itself and I have yet to see you produce any, to support what you say is an "objective" conclusion.

If you have some, please share.

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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 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?

 

[bhsmte]

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

I call it, as I see it.

I have not seen objective verifiable evidence to support your claims. Others may feel they have seen this type of evidence though, I can't speak for them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think the poster tries to be dishonest, it would seem a need to feel they are using objectivity in their conclusions though, is so important to them, that it creates situations, where the poster is forced to scramble and that is when the issues start.

Some people can admit they believe something on faith and some can't. The one's who can't, are in constant overdrive, searching for anyway to convince themselves, they have objective evidence for their belief. This is what we have here, IMO.

You do realize that there are others in the scientific arena that feel as I do? There are those that make the same claim that the evidence in our universe supports design. In fact, there have been some scientists that were once atheists/agnostics that due to the evidence of which I speak have come to the same conclusions as I do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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 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?

It would appear to me, the pattern continues.

These people who you have sought to support your position, do not seem to be much different, in how you seek scientists who state this appearance of design, supports your position, and that it is objective.

Never mind, these same scientists, peel back the layers a bit and disagree with your conclusions, but you hang on to an appearance statement, to feed the confirmation bias and then you call it objective, but have failed to show any support that this conclusion can be supported in an objective manner.

Sort of like, the doctor scenario I gave you, in which you ignore the more specific and accurate lab results and default to the doctors opinion, the growth did not appear to be cancerous.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You do realize that there are others in the scientific arena that feel as I do? There are those that make the same claim that the evidence in our universe supports design. In fact, there have been some scientists that were once atheists/agnostics that due to the evidence of which I speak have come to the same conclusions as I do.

Please name some. Links to their bio or other info abut them would be helpful.

 

[lasthero]

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 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?

Who are these varied groups?

 

[bhsmte]

You do realize that there are others in the scientific arena that feel as I do? There are those that make the same claim that the evidence in our universe supports design. In fact, there have been some scientists that were once atheists/agnostics that due to the evidence of which I speak have come to the same conclusions as I do.

Once, when you get a big enough group of people, a very small portion will always have different takes on things.

I can't explain to you why a Phd level biologist would not agree with the TOE, but they do exist, but in a very very small percentage (maybe 1%). These people who disagree and believe in ID, do they have objective verifiable evidence to support their position? No, they don't and this has been shown time and time again. Is their objective verifiable evidence to support the TOE? Yes, there is and to try to explain why a Phd biologist would ignore this, is likely getting into the personal psychology and ideology of why the person would take a position that is subjective.

It is really really important to you, to stay away from just stating; I believe what I do on faith and I realize I do not have objective verifiable evidence to support my position.

The above, is very clear to me at least and shows up in just about everyone one of your posts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It would appear to me, the pattern continues.

These people who you have sought to support your position, do not seem to be much different, in how you seek scientists who state this appearance of design, supports your position, and that it is objective.

Never mind, these same scientists, peel back the layers a bit and disagree with your conclusions, but you hang on to an appearance statement, to feed the confirmation bias and then you call it objective, but have failed to show any support that this conclusion can be supported in an objective manner.

Sort of like, the doctor scenario I gave you, in which you ignore the more specific and accurate lab results and default to the doctors opinion, the growth did not appear to be cancerous.

What layers have they peeled back a bit to disagree with my conclusions?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Your vigilance to support your conclusions beyond just faith, are what get you in trouble and cause you, to post things that are false and loaded with confirmation bias.

This is common place, when a person starts with a conclusion and starts out on a search to confirm the conclusion, as opposed to just, following the evidence and then coming up with a conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who are these varied groups?

I have people that I will go to who hold various worldviews enough and who have been fair minded to any position that I can get a very good feedback on my behavior and others. I have asked people who don't agree with my position per se but have shown fairness to others who don't know me personally to assess my conversations so that I have a wide set of people to determine accuracy in the assessment.

 

[lasthero]

I have people that I will go to who hold various worldviews enough and who have been fair minded to any position that I can get a very good feedback on my behavior and others. I have asked people who don't agree with my position per se but have shown fairness to others who don't know me personally to assess my conversations so that I have a wide set of people to determine accuracy in the assessment.

Like who?