Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

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

Ok, then if Scientists who have had the education, research and data come to the conclusion that there is an appearance of design and most all agree with that assessment, I feel I am in pretty good company. I imagine there are many that would agree that they have a good position to come to conclusions based on their experience and education.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole again.

Here is a good analogy that corresponds with this:

• Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
  
  The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.​

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.

This is why the fine tuning is so significant, the fact that it is so fine tuned for life.

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

I think I will look into this claim later. You could be right of course, but I am interested to see if this is true. Regardless, they base their opinions on experience, education and research so I think that their opinions are based on objective information.

 

[Davian]

In one way you are correct, I know that God exists and so that is the shooting off point in all my discussions. That is the one absolute known element in my debates.
...

Why should I take this statement, that you "know God", any more seriously than you would take my claim that I "know Santa".

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, then if Scientists who have had the education, research and data come to the conclusion that there is an appearance of design and most all agree with that assessment, I feel I am in pretty good company.

So you agree with the scientists that the appearance of design is a subjective opinion?

• Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
  
  The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.​

The problem is that you wait for the dart to hit, and then paint the bullseye around it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why should I take this statement, that you "know God", any more seriously than you would take my claim that I "know Santa".

I don't care if you take it at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you agree with the scientists that the appearance of design is a subjective opinion?

It is a conclusion based on data that has to be something other than chance or necessity and has no naturalistic explanation which with their experience, education and research they base their conclusions. IF you wish to claim it is a subjective opinion that most scientists hold to be true then so be it.

The problem is that you wait for the dart to hit, and then paint the bullseye around it.

Don't you think that educated, intelligent men and women in the field of astrophysics/physics/cosmology just paint the bullseye around it?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a conclusion based on data that has to be something other than chance or necessity and has no naturalistic explanation which with their experience, education and research they base their conclusions. IF you wish to claim it is a subjective opinion that most scientists hold to be true then so be it.

Can you show us a scientist who says that it is objective?

Don't you think that educated, intelligent men and women in the field of astrophysics/physics/cosmology just paint the bullseye around it?

No, they don't paint a bullseye around it. That is why they say that it appears to be designed instead of actually being designed. They recognize that it is our subjective biases that produce the appearance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you show us a scientist who says that it is objective?

Would they say that their conclusions are mere subjective opinion?

No, they don't paint a bullseye around it. That is why they say that it appears to be designed instead of actually being designed. They recognize that it is our subjective biases that produce the appearance.

Which is what I've said, that the universe appears designed. So you are claiming here two different things, that scientists are saying that the universe appears designed which to you isn't painting a bullseye around it but it is with me? Why is that? Secondly, you are claiming that they themselves are claiming that they claim the universe appears to be designed on subjective biases?

 

[HitchSlap]

It is a conclusion based on data that has to be something other than chance or necessity and has no naturalistic explanation which with their experience, education and research they base their conclusions. IF you wish to claim it is a subjective opinion that most scientists hold to be true then so be it.



Don't you think that educated, intelligent men and women in the field of astrophysics/physics/cosmology just paint the bullseye around it?

Ah, I see problem here. You've forgotten the definition of "appearance."

Here, let me help you out.

ap·pear·ance noun \ə-ˈpir-ən(t)s\
: the way that someone or something looks

: a way of looking that is not true or real

: the action of appearing : the fact that something or someone arrives or begins to be seen

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

It is a conclusion based on data that has to be something other than chance or necessity and has no naturalistic explanation which with their experience, education and research they base their conclusions. IF you wish to claim it is a subjective opinion that most scientists hold to be true then so be it.



Don't you think that educated, intelligent men and women in the field of astrophysics/physics/cosmology just paint the bullseye around it?
​

Ah, I see problem here. You've forgotten the definition of "appearance."

Here, let me help you out.

ap·pear·ance noun \ə-ˈpir-ən(t)s\
: the way that someone or something looks

: a way of looking that is not true or real

: the action of appearing : the fact that something or someone arrives or begins to be seen

Is that the definition the scientists use to make their statements that the universe appears to be designed?

 

[Davian]

I don't care if you take it at all.

If that were the case, why then use it as a basis for your discussions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If that were the case, why then use it as a basis for your discussions?

I was not discussing this with you at all.

 

[Davian]

I was not discussing this with you at all.

True. You have not moved past the seeing-bunnies-in-the-clouds-as-evidence stage that we hit back in May of this year.

To reiterate, if those you are currently discussing this topic with do not accept your "knowledge of God" claim, why then use it as a basis for your discussions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

True. You have not moved past the seeing-bunnies-in-the-clouds-as-evidence stage that we hit back in May of this year.

To reiterate, if those you are currently discussing this topic with do not accept your "knowledge of God" claim, why then use it as a basis for your discussions?

It is not unlike those who claim that they know that time exists and use it in discussions. Not that time and God are equally objectively able to be shown but once someone knows something it is a part of the way they communicate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Would they say that their conclusions are mere subjective opinion?

I have said that many times now.

Which is what I've said, that the universe appears designed. So you are claiming here two different things, that scientists are saying that the universe appears designed which to you isn't painting a bullseye around it but it is with me?

They are saying the same exact thing I am saying, that the appearance of design is a result of subjective biases, namely the confirmation bias inherent in the anthropic principle.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not unlike those who claim that they know that time exists and use it in discussions. Not that time and God are equally objectively able to be shown but once someone knows something it is a part of the way they communicate.

Knowing and believing are not the same thing. Knowledge can be demonstrated. If you claim to have knowledge of God, then you need to demonstrate this knowledge with evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

As I've stated before, Once, we all make three fundamental assumptions:

Reality exists.
We can know something about reality.
Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those that aren't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Knowing and believing are not the same thing. Knowledge can be demonstrated. If you claim to have knowledge of God, then you need to demonstrate this knowledge with evidence.

Tell me this, if there were a isolated island that did not have any way to get information from the outside world, and on this island there was an animal totally unknown to the rest of the world and one man. Does this man who knows this animal exists holding knowledge even if the rest of the world does not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Tell me this, if there were a isolated island that did not have any way to get information from the outside world, and on this island there was an animal totally unknown to the rest of the world and one man. Does this man who knows this animal exists holding knowledge even if the rest of the world does not?

The man could demonstrate that the animal exists to anyone who happened to stumble onto the island. That is what makes it knowledge.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The man could demonstrate that the animal exists to anyone who happened to stumble onto the island. That is what makes it knowledge.

Is it knowledge if no one stumbles onto the island?

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I've stated before, Once, we all make three fundamental assumptions:

Reality exists.
We can know something about reality.
Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those that aren't.

Yes, I agree. Yet, there are those elements that are unable to be falsified that still could be true, do you not agree?