Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[Loudmouth]

He uses the data gathered to determine the appearance of design, his opinion is the conclusions he makes from that.

He is a top scientist, is he not?

You are abandoning the position held by top scientists?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am disagreeing with their personal opinions.

You haven't shown that they are personal opinions.

Funny how it is suddenly a personal opinion when it disagrees with you.

 

[bhsmte]

He uses the data gathered to determine the appearance of design, his opinion is the conclusions he makes from that.

In other words, you are concluding, that Davies is being subjective, because he concludes he can not believe in ID, because there is no verifiable objective evidence that points to design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown that they are personal opinions.

Funny how it is suddenly a personal opinion when it disagrees with you.

No, I've been very clear from the beginning that they hold a different conclusion than I about the appearance of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In other words, you are concluding, that Davies is being subjective, because he concludes he can not believe in ID, because there is no verifiable objective evidence that points to design?

There are other Scientists that look at the same evidence and conclude that the appearance of design indeed supports actual design. The evidence is what it is and it stands alone. The conclusions one comes to from that evidence is opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

There are other Scientists that look at the same evidence and conclude that the appearance of design indeed supports actual design. The evidence is what it is and it stands alone. The conclusions one comes to from that evidence is opinion.

As a scientist, you are then saying, if a falsifiable test does not exist to test and confirm verifiable evidence is present to confirm design, they are being subjective if they conclude they don't believe in ID?

Wow, just wow!!!!

 

[Oncedeceived]

As a scientist, you are then saying, if a falsifiable test does not exist to test and confirm verifiable evidence is present to confirm design, they are being subjective if they conclude they don't believe in ID?

Wow, just wow!!!!

IF there is no evidence that would prohibit ID, and the evidence appears to be designed then it would be reasonable to assume that the conclusions are based on their own personal opinions.

Loudmouth is claiming that they do have evidence that prohibits ID.

Loudmouth Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

They are not claiming there is no evidence of ID.
​

Yeah, they are.

"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies

Yet I have not seen any scientific papers of this evidence for no Designer or how the universe did indeed fix itself.

 

[bhsmte]

IF there is no evidence that would prohibit ID, and the evidence appears to be designed then it would be reasonable to assume that the conclusions are based on their own personal opinions.

Loudmouth is claiming that they do have evidence that prohibits ID.

Loudmouth Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

They are not claiming there is no evidence of ID.
​

Yeah, they are.

"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies

Yet I have not seen any scientific papers of this evidence for no Designer or how the universe did indeed fix itself.

Ok, so if a scientist declares; I do not believe that aliens created man, because there is no evidence to confirm this, then they are also being subjective in this conclusion?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I've been very clear from the beginning that they hold a different conclusion than I about the appearance of design.

You claim that your views are supported by the top scientists. You claim it all of the time.

Why are you changing your tune?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, so if a scientist declares; I do not believe that aliens created man, because there is no evidence to confirm this, then they are also being subjective in this conclusion?

Yes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claim that your views are supported by the top scientists. You claim it all of the time.

Why are you changing your tune?

Twisting in the wind once again. You really like to twist words and what amazes me is that others see you doing it and remain silent. You know as well as everyone else that I have said that the appearance of design is my claim. The scientists say the universe appears designed.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes.

In essence, this is what you are saying:

The person who decides to hold off on belief, until verifiable evidence can substantiate the belief, is being subjective and is in the same boat as the person who decides to believe in something without verifiable evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Twisting in the wind once again.

That would be you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In essence, this is what you are saying:

The person who decides to hold off on belief, until verifiable evidence can substantiate the belief, is being subjective and is in the same boat as the person who decides to believe in something without verifiable evidence?

For someone who is always trying to tell people why they believe what they believe you sure have a serious problem with understanding what people are saying.

Holding off on belief, holding a belief are two different things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That would be you.

How have I twisted your words?

 

[bhsmte]

For someone who is always trying to tell people why they believe what they believe you sure have a serious problem with understanding what people are saying.

Holding off on belief, holding a belief are two different things.

Of course they are different things.

I repeat:

Person A, is someone who requires verifiable evidence before they believe something is true.

Person B, chooses to believe in something, without verifiable evidence.

You are stating, both of these people are equally subjective in their conclusions?

 

[Loudmouth]

How have I twisted your words?

Yes, on many occasions. You claim that I believe there is no God, which is untrue. That is one example.

You are also twisting the words of top scientists, trying to make it appear as if they agree with you when they actually don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course they are different things.

I repeat:

Person A, is someone who requires verifiable evidence before they believe something is true.

Person B, chooses to believe in something, without verifiable evidence.

You are stating, both of these people are equally subjective in their conclusions?

Nope

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, on many occasions. You claim that I believe there is no God, which is untrue. That is one example.

You are also twisting the words of top scientists, trying to make it appear as if they agree with you when they actually don't.

Are you claiming that most of the top scientists in the /physics/cosmology arena are not claiming that the universe appears designed?

 

[bhsmte]

Nope

You could have fooled me, judging by your posts.

Davies does not believe in ID, and you do.

Which of you is being more subjective in your conclusions?