Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[bhsmte]

Are you angry bshmte? Why did you feel the need to use all caps 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?

All caps? I bolded my text between your own text so it could be identified. Overreact much?

I always get a kick out of the "angry" question, when someone is asked and challenged to support their claims.

Let me repeat myself, I have never questioned the faith belief of a person (which may include a certainty God exists) if that person is honest and states they believe what they do on faith and they stay away from claiming superiority, claiming to have objective evidence and or misrepresenting science.

In regards to yourself, I have clearly stated my observations on your positions and where I take issue with them. Others on this board have as well, as I am not alone in the observations I have made.

If you have not noticed, you are on a section of these forums, where you will be asked to support your claims, you will be asked to clear up contradictions and you will be asked to answer simple questions. Doing so, seems to be a real challenge for you and the defense mechanisms kick into overdrive when you are questioned and asked to support your claims. If you can't handle any of the above, you should put me on ignore.

 

[FoxyRoxy]

"Darwinism"

No one calls it that anymore! You do realize we are 150+ years of research ahead of Darwin, right? Nothing in biology makes sense without natural selection.

Doctors use it to study diseases...
Anthropologists use it to study population movements...
Geologists use it to date rocks...
Fisheries use it to manage their fish...
Pesticide companies use it to fight pests...
Farmers use it to control crops...
Conservationists use it to help save endangered species...
Animal breeders use it! (obviously)

Specifically:
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology to help track infectious diseases and treat things like HIV/AIDS.
Ribotyping is a technique to help identify evolutionary relatives of pathogens that we cannot identify normally through culturing.
Common ancestry plays a big part in determining protein folding since divergent proteins (from a common ancestor) tend to conserve their folds.
Knowledge of how to direct evolution helps us create new:
enzymes, antibiotics, biopolymers, flavors for food, beneficial bacterial strains.

Outside of my field of molecular biology:
genetic algorithms based in natural selection have been applied to engineering things in aerospace, architecture, astrophysics, data mining...

jeez... that's all I can think of for now. But with so many real world applications of natural selection how can you deny that it works? "Darwinism" isn't a pseudo-science. It IS the foundation of many branches of modern science. Even if you don't agree with the timing (billions of years or a few thousands) you have to at least admit that the principles of natural selection work.

 

[bhsmte]

"Darwinism"

No one calls it that anymore! You do realize we are 150+ years of research ahead of Darwin, right? Nothing in biology makes sense without natural selection.

Doctors use it to study diseases...
Anthropologists use it to study population movements...
Geologists use it to date rocks...
Fisheries use it to manage their fish...
Pesticide companies use it to fight pests...
Farmers use it to control crops...
Conservationists use it to help save endangered species...
Animal breeders use it! (obviously)

Specifically:
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology to help track infectious diseases and treat things like HIV/AIDS.
Ribotyping is a technique to help identify evolutionary relatives of pathogens that we cannot identify normally through culturing.
Common ancestry plays a big part in determining protein folding since divergent proteins (from a common ancestor) tend to conserve their folds.
Knowledge of how to direct evolution helps us create new:
enzymes, antibiotics, biopolymers, flavors for food, beneficial bacterial strains.

Outside of my field of molecular biology:
genetic algorithms based in natural selection have been applied to engineering things in aerospace, architecture, astrophysics, data mining...

jeez... that's all I can think of for now. But with so many real world applications of natural selection how can you deny that it works?

On your last sentence. Denial comes easy, when acknowledging the evidence, creates too much inner turmoil and goes against a tightly held belief.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All caps? I bolded my text between your own text so it could be identified. Overreact much?

You might go back and notice that I did change that to bolding, it was my mistake that I said caps. The question still stands, why did you feel the need to bold your statement.

I always get a kick out of the "angry" question, when someone is asked and challenged to support their claims.

Yet that is not what you were doing. You were not asking me to support my claims.

Let me repeat myself, I have never questioned the faith belief of a person (which may include a certainty God exists) if that person is honest and states they believe what they do on faith and they stay away from claiming superiority, claiming to have objective evidence and or misrepresenting science.

I ask you again, when have I ever claimed superiority? Do you have insecurities about someone stating their certainty of God's existence without quantifying it as based only on faith? Why would it be a problem for you that I claim I have objective evidence and how have I misrepresented science?

In regards to yourself, I have clearly stated my observations on your positions and where I take issue with them. Others on this board have as well, as I am not alone in the observations I have made.

And others have clearly stated differently.

If you have not noticed, you are on a section of these forums, where you will be asked to support your claims, you will be asked to clear up contradictions and you will be asked to answer simple questions.

Now think about what you are saying here. You are very much contradicting yourself here. You take issue when people (me) try to use scientific evidence to support their position, yet you are telling me here that I am on a forum that asks that I support my claims. Do you see the problem with that? If I use science to support my claims you take issue because I am doing so rather than claiming I believe on faith, yet you take issue that I should support my claims. Its a position that takes issue no matter what I do. It seems to me at least that you take issue with Christians unless they side with the atheists on everything. I don't think that is really communication of any kind.

Doing so, seems to be a real challenge for you and the defense mechanisms kick into overdrive when you are questioned and asked to support your claims. If you can't handle any of the above, you should put me on ignore.

See above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

On your last sentence. Denial comes easy, when acknowledging the evidence, creates too much inner turmoil and goes against a tightly held belief.

Case in point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As already discussed, appearance is not evidence.

The evidence is the data.

Posting measurements is not evidence.

IT is evidence that the universe is fine tuned.

Appearance is not evidence.

The data is.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is the data.

The data is the data. The appearance of design is a subjective opinion.

IT is evidence that the universe is fine tuned.

As already shown, using your definition we would conclude that any universe is fine tuned.

The data is.

Your subjective opinions of the data are not.

 

[bhsmte]

You might go back and notice that I did change that to bolding, it was my mistake that I said caps. The question still stands, why did you feel the need to bold your statement.

Again, bolding to distinguish my text from yours, ok?

Yet that is not what you were doing. You were not asking me to support my claims.


I ask you again, when have I ever claimed superiority? Do you have insecurities about someone stating their certainty of God's existence without quantifying it as based only on faith? Why would it be a problem for you that I claim I have objective evidence and how have I misrepresented science?

I have no issue with those who are certain God exists and my ability to get along swimmingly with others on this board who do is evidence of the same. My motivation comes from understanding your position, when you claim to have objective evidence, as many others have on these boards. If you claim to have it, you should be willing to support it. Why do you take issue with that?

And others have clearly stated differently.

Others clearly have the same issues with your debating style as I do.



Now think about what you are saying here. You are very much contradicting yourself here. You take issue when people (me) try to use scientific evidence to support their position, yet you are telling me here that I am on a forum that asks that I support my claims. Do you see the problem with that? If I use science to support my claims you take issue because I am doing so rather than claiming I believe on faith, yet you take issue that I should support my claims. Its a position that takes issue no matter what I do. It seems to me at least that you take issue with Christians unless they side with the atheists on everything. I don't think that is really communication of any kind.

Very simple once, if you claim to have objective evidence, some will ask that you show us this objective evidence. This is curious to me and others, because I have yet to see, any person who is a believer, present objective verifiable evidence to support a faith belief and you would be the first to do so. Therefore, it is intriguing when someone claims to have objective evidence and the natural response, is to ask for this evidence. Do you have a problem with that?


See above.

Again, bolded my text, so it could easily be differentiated from yours. Is that ok with you?

 

[bhsmte]

Case in point.

Indeed. It is a good case in point as to why some are motivated to deny objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The data is the data. The appearance of design is a subjective opinion.

I guess then you agree that scientists use subjective opinion in determining conclusions in Science? So you think the consensus of physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists that the universe appears designed is based solely on opinion rather than any objective data?

As already shown, using your definition we would conclude that any universe is fine tuned.

I don't have a personal definition for fine tuned universe, it is a scientific term used to describe the incredibly tuned elements of the universe.

Your subjective opinions of the data are not.

Including the scientists who claim the universe appears designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess then you agree that scientists use subjective opinion in determining conclusions in Science?

They use subjective opinion to conclude that there is an appearance of design.

So you think the consensus of physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists that the universe appears designed is based solely on opinion rather than any objective data?

The Mona Lisa is an objective reality. The measurements of the paint, frame, and age are all objective. Whether or not the Mona Lisa has the appearance of a pretty woman is a subjective opinion. Pointing to objective measurements does not negate the subjectivity of the opinion.

I don't have a personal definition for fine tuned universe, it is a scientific term used to describe the incredibly tuned elements of the universe.

Every universe will have incredibly tuned elements.

Including the scientists who claim the universe appears designed?

Including the scientists who have the subjective opinion that the universe appears to be designed.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess then you agree that scientists use subjective opinion in determining conclusions in Science? So you think the consensus of physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists that the universe appears designed is based solely on opinion rather than any objective data?



I don't have a personal definition for fine tuned universe, it is a scientific term used to describe the incredibly tuned elements of the universe.




Including the scientists who claim the universe appears designed?

You can solve this dilemma quite easily once.

Provide a scientist, who utilized an objective test of the universe, to determine it appears designed. This test would have to differentiate between what is designed and what is not designed and be falsifiable.

If this test does not exist, then any opinion from anyone, that the universe appears to be designed, is based on subjectivity.

Remember my analogy of the doctor who thought a skin growth appeared to not be cancerous, but the lab test (which is objective and verifiable) showed that the growth was cancerous? The initial appearance opinion of the doctor would be subjective.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can solve this dilemma quite easily once.

Provide a scientist, who utilized an objective test of the universe, to determine it appears designed. This test would have to differentiate between what is designed and what is not designed and be falsifiable.

If this test does not exist, then any opinion from anyone, that the universe appears to be designed, is based on subjectivity.

Remember my analogy of the doctor who thought a skin growth appeared to not be cancerous, but the lab test (which is objective and verifiable) showed that the growth was cancerous? The initial appearance opinion of the doctor would be subjective.

That is all fine and good. IF you wish to conclude that the scientists are using only subjective opinion to base their conclusions upoin then that is your opinion.

I think that they are basing it on objective evidence that brings them to a reasonable conclusion that it appears designed. That is my opinion. I just side with them due to the information that they have used to make that determination, what do use to determine that they aren't?

 

[Loudmouth]

I just side with them due to the information that they have used to make that determination, what do use to determine that they aren't?

You need to find a scientist who says that the appearance of design is objective before you have a scientist that agrees with you.

 

[bhsmte]

That is all fine and good. IF you wish to conclude that the scientists are using only subjective opinion to base their conclusions upoin then that is your opinion.

I think that they are basing it on objective evidence that brings them to a reasonable conclusion that it appears designed. That is my opinion. I just side with them due to the information that they have used to make that determination, what do use to determine that they aren't?

Yes, you side with them on the sole comment of; "appearance of design", and would appear to separate yourself from them beyond that.

 

[bhsmte]

You need to find a scientist who says that the appearance of design is objective before you have a scientist that agrees with you.

This is an example of what we are talking about. This is a simple request, to support the claim once is making, but I have yet to see any direct response to this request.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They use subjective opinion to conclude that there is an appearance of design.

Ok. So is it unscientific to do so?

The Mona Lisa is an objective reality. The measurements of the paint, frame, and age are all objective. Whether or not the Mona Lisa has the appearance of a pretty woman is a subjective opinion. Pointing to objective measurements does not negate the subjectivity of the opinion.

Does the subjectivity come from consequences of necessity in your analogy? Is there any consequence on the level of the permitting value or size on allowing life to evolve? No, then your analogy is not on the same level as the fine tuning one.

Every universe will have incredibly tuned elements.

Evidence?

Including the scientists who have the subjective opinion that the universe appears to be designed.

Is that unscientific?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. So is it unscientific to do so?

It is not a scientific conclusion. Scientists are allowed to have subjective opinions, are they not?

Does the subjectivity come from consequences of necessity in your analogy? Is there any consequence on the level of the permitting value or size on allowing life to evolve? No, then your analogy is not on the same level as the fine tuning one.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole again.

Evidence?

Already covered a thousand times. Every universe will have unique features that are a consequence of the constants found at the beginning of that universe. Therefore, every universe will be fine tuned for the unique features in that universe. In our universe, one of those unique features is life. In another universe it may be multicolored stars, or atoms the size of our Sun.

Is that unscientific?

Of course subjective opinions are unscientific. That's why they don't include the appearance of design in their scientific papers.

 

[FoxyRoxy]

Evidence?

I think he is referring to the anthropic principle. The universe must be the way it is because, if not, we wouldn't be here to ask the questions.

More to the point: any universe that a conscious being capable of asking questions finds itself in, must (by definition) be finely-tuned in the way that it is. Otherwise the being making the observation would not be there to do the observing.

It's a subtle philosophical point... It takes a while to wrap your head around it. Maybe do some reading about it. I'm not that good at explaining it. But he's pointing out that the "fine-tuned universe" argument is invalid because only someone inside that universe is able to comment on such things. It could be that there are many other universes out there all with different laws of physics and different beings marveling at how fine-tuned their particular universe just happens to be.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I guess then you agree that scientists use subjective opinion in determining conclusions in Science? So you think the consensus of physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists that the universe appears designed is based solely on opinion rather than any objective data?



I don't have a personal definition for fine tuned universe, it is a scientific term used to describe the incredibly tuned elements of the universe.




Including the scientists who claim the universe appears designed?

Even if a whole bunch of them state the universe appears designed, that doesn't mean they actually think the universe IS designed.

Which doesn't cover a whole lot of physical properties in our universe

Again, even if all of them agreed that it looked designed, that doesn't mean they all conclude it is.