• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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".
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.