CDZ Evolution: Valid Science, or Hoax?

[usfan]

There is no god.

I find this an absurd statement. There is no way you have enough information about the infinite universe to make such a dogmatic statement.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"I" am not the topic. To focus on personalities, rather than the topic is a dodge, to avoid discussing it, & it only reveals the impotence of the debaters.

So are you completely incurious as to the origins of the diversity of life?
You just reject the Theory of Evolution- without any curiosity as to how all of the life around you is as it is?

I don't "believe in" evolution. It's settled science. It doesn't require faith or belief. It is fact.
You question authority......but believe in god? That does not compute.
Are you also an "intelligent design" proponent? Is that how you explain things?
And no...I don't question the agenda of the teachers I had in school. They were simply trying to make a living by providing instruction to students. No agenda.
There is no god.

That is another personal attack. This is the CDZ.

You are the topic as you are standing in opposition to settled science. You admit that you know enough of the jargon to be dangerous. Exactly what I said earlier. You know enough to convince an impressionable person to buy into ID. Good for you. But....America's children will be taught evolution. It's the real thing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no god.

I find this an absurd statement. There is no way you have enough information about the infinite universe to make such a dogmatic statement.

Of course you do. You have faith. You believe.

I will,change my mind on that when I see one. Or....even hear one.

Until then......nope. None exist.

 

[Syriusly]

"I" am not the topic. To focus on personalities, rather than the topic is a dodge, to avoid discussing it, & it only reveals the impotence of the debaters.

So are you completely incurious as to the origins of the diversity of life?
You just reject the Theory of Evolution- without any curiosity as to how all of the life around you is as it is?

]

So you have no alternative theory- you just reject the most viable theory we do have.

 

[usfan]

Alright.. i'm getting a bit tired of the personal shit. I'll take a break for a while, & if anyone wants to debate the topic, i'll join back in later.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Alright.. i'm getting a bit tired of the personal shit. I'll take a break for a while, & if anyone wants to debate the topic, i'll join back in later.

Then you shouldn't have gotten personal.

 

[orogenicman]

I propose a scientific debate on the topic of evolution.

Does evolution provide a scientific & logical explanation for the origins & complexity of life?

I say it does not. Here are my reasons:

1. Micro evolution, or natural selection, explains how species adapt to their environment. The result of this adaptation is a decrease in diversity in the species, as the gene pool promotes those traits that are favorable to the environment. This is dark moths adapting to dark bark on trees, white rabbits doing better in the snow, & other natural selection processes. This kind of evolution does not increase complexity, but decreases it, as fewer genetic traits become available to the species. There is no known mechanism that causes an increase in genetic complexity. Mutations are aberrations in the genetic code, seldom produce anything positive for the species, & do not increase the complexity of the life form. It does not indicate macro evolution.

The only differences between micro evolution and macro evolution are the amount of time it takes for one versus the other to occur, and the fact that neither are scientific terms, being inventions of creationists, not evolutionary scientists. Moreover, evolution doesn't strictly explain how species adapt to their environment. Evolution is a scientific explanation for the origin of species. It is the process by which different types of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. That process knows no boundaries in time, even though time is a vital part of the process.

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic.

To claim a distinction between the two sans evidence is the definition of disingenuous.

3. There is no mechanism that can explain why or how life can become more complex through evolution.

If you ignore all the evidence to the contrary, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. You are trying to restate the watchmaker analogy, an argument that was refuted over 80 years ago. There is such a mechanism that explains how life evolved; and that mechanism it is natural selection. But evolution has no arrow, nothing that requires one species to be more complex than the one that precedes it. One look at the fossil record will show you that some species become LESS complex than their ancestors, while others become more complex. It all depends on to what the species is adapting. If a species is adapted to life both on land and in the water, and the water dries up in the region as it becomes more arid, and continues to become more and more arid, the adaptations for life in water will, over time, become non-functional, or disappear altogether. Genetically, however, the genes for adaptation to life in the water will still be there in its genome, but have become non-functional. If the region becomes a wetlands once again in another era, those genes could reactivate, and allow for a new species that is once again adapted to life in water. We see this in frogs as well as other species.

4. One of the most basic concepts in science is that of entropy, or the tendency of all things to move to less complexity. Unless acted upon by an outside source, all of the universe is moving toward equilibrium & a simpler state. There is no known mechanism that explains HOW or WHAT is causing life to increase in complexity. If anything, in recorded history, life is decreasing in complexity & diversity. Unique species are lost, and distinct new ones are not being added. We have variation within a life form's genetic limitations, but no moving into more complexity. This is what you would expect with entropy, & it brings a major difficulty to those claiming an increase in complexity through evolution.

If you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics, that is not what it says. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as a closed isolated system, will always increase over time. Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. What this means is that in a closed system, entropy increases over time, that is, randomness and disorder increases as the energy available to do work decreases. This does not apply to living organisms because life is not a closed system. Organisms obtain energy externally. Animals get their energy by eating other organisms. Plants get their energy from the sun. Because of this, the only limit to how complex they can become depends on what they need to survive and reproduce.

5. As to origins, there is no mechanism or procedure that can create life.. real, reproducing life, not just some amino acids or 'building blocks' of life. There is nothing that can be measured, repeated, falsified, or even theorized. It is a leap of faith to believe life began spontaneously & increased in complexity for millions of years. There is no valid scientific explanation for this, even though it is asserted as fact in many spheres.

The biological theory of evolution does not, nor was it intended to explain the origin of life. It is only intended to explain the origin of species. If you want to discuss the origin of life, I suggest you start a new thread, because this one is about evolution.

I am not making an argument for special creation, or alien seeding, or any other theories or speculations of origins. I am including evolution with the others. Our origins are a mystery, which science & logic have not been able to explain to this point. Macro evolution, or the increase in complexity in life forms, is an unproven speculation & fantasy. It is a leap of faith.. a religious opinion.. not science.

So, you have no alternative theory to propose, but are only saying that despite the wealth of information on the matter, it is your contention that evolution is wrong (not a hoax, because none of the above supports your claim that it is a hoax). It is not enough to refute a theory, any theory. You must propose an alternative theory that better explans the facts than the existing one. And so far, you haven't refuted the existing theory, much less propose an alternative one thst better explains the facts. That being the case, what's your point?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But at this stage, assertions are offered, which do not prove anything

Ironic!

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is just an exercise in critical thinking & logic, using science & observable reality

Irony squared!

So far you have done none of the above.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I find this an absurd statement. There is no way you have enough information about the infinite universe to make such a dogmatic statement.

Using logic and reason there is no God.

Try it for yourself.

The omnipotence paradox proves that God cannot exist.

 

[usfan]

I will address this point in more detail. This argument for evolution relies on a False Equivalency.

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic. It is like saying that since people can travel easily between towns, they can travel easily between planets. There is a major difference between natural selection, which is a scientifically observable phenomenon used in breeding & hybridization, and the increase in complexity in a life form.

Proponents of evolution argue that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seems not only plausible, but is eventually accepted as proven fact. But, as a scientific theory, it has NO evidentiary backup. It is a fantasy.. a sci fi movie that people have turned into a cult following. You cannot talk about evolution scientifically, without the discussion devolving into a heated religious discussion. Cries of 'Blasphemy!' are there with the dedicated followers of this sect. It is not science. Evolution is a religion.
My challenge remains. Show me ONE piece of evidence that proves that living things cannot just vary, but make a genetic leap into a different gene pool. For over 100 yrs, this has been asserted, claiming it happens so slowly, we just cannot see it, but in the fossil record it happened too quickly, & we missed it. This was a fine belief system for the 19th century, but science has 'evolved' a bit since then. Living organisms do not flit about, genetically, changing with every weather pattern, or developing new genes to adapt to conditions.
I am making NO religious arguments. Stick with science. Show me ONE bit of hard evidence... heck, i'm desperate, i'll take FLACCID evidence! Give me ANYTHING that shows how living things can change in their basic DNA. Show me HOW the chimp ancestor went from 20 pair genomes (or whatever), to 24.. or to the human 23 chromosomes. There is absolutely NO evidence that this CAN happen, much less that is somehow DID happen, millions of years ago or yesterday. Scientifically, it is impossible. Yet the pseudo science babblers declare it as proven fact, masking everything in a flurry of meaningless verbiage designed to obscure, not enlighten. It may fool gullible people who are impressed with words they don't understand, & give the appearance of scientific credibility because of that, but it is merely a jumble of obfuscation.. put together to say nothing. This is not scientific research, it is pseudo science gobbledy gook.

Mod Edit: When you copy and paste from another source, please link to the source or it consitutes plagierism. Link for the above is Philosophical musings The Theory of Evolution A False Equivalency

 

[usfan]

The only differences between micro evolution and macro evolution are the amount of time it takes for one versus the other to occur, and the fact that neither are scientific terms, being inventions of creationists, not evolutionary scientists. Moreover, evolution doesn't strictly explain how species adapt to their environment. Evolution is a scientific explanation for the origin of species. It is the process by which different types of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. That process knows no boundaries in time, even though time is a vital part of the process.

So you assert. In the previous post i address the false equivalency of this argument. There is a MAJOR difference between simple variability, & the assertion that major leaps can be made between distinct genetic types. Appealing to time has no scientific validity, as no mechanism has been defined or observed that can make this even possible, whether you have millions of years, or minutes.

If you ignore all the evidence to the contrary, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. You are trying to restate the watchmaker analogy, an argument that was refuted over 80 years ago. There is such a mechanism that explains how life evolved; and that mechanism it is natural selection. But evolution has no arrow, nothing that requires one species to be more complex than the one that precedes it. One look at the fossil record will show you that some species become LESS complex than their ancestors, while others become more complex. It all depends on to what the species is adapting. If a species is adapted to life both on land and in the water, and the water dries up in the region as it becomes more arid, and continues to become more and more arid, the adaptations for life in water will, over time, become non-functional, or disappear altogether. Genetically, however, the genes for adaptation to life in the water will still be there in its genome, but have become non-functional. If the region becomes a wetlands once again in another era, those genes could reactivate, and allow for a new species that is once again adapted to life in water. We see this in frogs as well as other species.

So you assert. Natural selection only explains variation. It does not contain any mechanism to allow the vertical jumps to more complexity, as is proposed. We know a lot more about genetics than we did in the 1800s, & it is not so simple to create 'The Island of Dr Moreau'.
There is also no evidence of less complexity. Species can devolve into less variability, with fewer traits at their disposal for adaptation, but they do not change genomes or move down the evolutionary scale. A horse remains a horse. It does not become a monkey or a fish.
You only assert that there are 'genes for adaptation'. That is another argument with the 'looks like' qualifier. If there is a gene for a particular trait, it will be in the dna. If some dna 'looks like' something from another dna, that is coincidental, & can not be shown to be causal.
One of the major rules of the scientific method is this:
'Correlation does not imply causation'.
If you make a claim of causation, you need evidence. Merely noting similarity in looks, or making assumptions about any correlation is not valid science.
Claiming that there are all these genes that only need to be 'activated' is sci fi. There is no observable evidence that this is even possible, yet you assert it. The assertion that animals create genetic material to adapt is fantasy. They do not. If an animal does not have the variability within it existing genetic code, it dies & goes extinct. THAT is what we observe, not the random creation of new adaptation traits.

The biological theory of evolution does not, nor was it intended to explain the origin of life. It is only intended to explain the origin of species. If you want to discuss the origin of life, I suggest you start a new thread, because this one is about evolution.

The correlation is always made, & i included the point. But if you want to leave it out, along with any implications from it, that is fine with me. Some people are more invested in abiogenesis, & insist on including it. I was mostly trying to cover my bases, & keep my ducks in a row.

 

[orogenicman]

I will address this point in more detail. This argument for evolution relies on a False Equivalency.

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic. It is like saying that since people can travel easily between towns, they can travel easily between planets. There is a major difference between natural selection, which is a scientifically observable phenomenon used in breeding & hybridization, and the increase in complexity in a life form.

Proponents of evolution argue that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seems not only plausible, but is eventually accepted as proven fact. But, as a scientific theory, it has NO evidentiary backup. It is a fantasy.. a sci fi movie that people have turned into a cult following. You cannot talk about evolution scientifically, without the discussion devolving into a heated religious discussion. Cries of 'Blasphemy!' are there with the dedicated followers of this sect. It is not science. Evolution is a religion.
My challenge remains. Show me ONE piece of evidence that proves that living things cannot just vary, but make a genetic leap into a different gene pool. For over 100 yrs, this has been asserted, claiming it happens so slowly, we just cannot see it, but in the fossil record it happened too quickly, & we missed it. This was a fine belief system for the 19th century, but science has 'evolved' a bit since then. Living organisms do not flit about, genetically, changing with every weather pattern, or developing new genes to adapt to conditions.
I am making NO religious arguments. Stick with science. Show me ONE bit of hard evidence... heck, i'm desperate, i'll take FLACCID evidence! Give me ANYTHING that shows how living things can change in their basic DNA. Show me HOW the chimp ancestor went from 20 pair genomes (or whatever), to 24.. or to the human 23 chromosomes. There is absolutely NO evidence that this CAN happen, much less that is somehow DID happen, millions of years ago or yesterday. Scientifically, it is impossible. Yet the pseudo science babblers declare it as proven fact, masking everything in a flurry of meaningless verbiage designed to obscure, not enlighten. It may fool gullible people who are impressed with words they don't understand, & give the appearance of scientific credibility because of that, but it is merely a jumble of obfuscation.. put together to say nothing. This is not scientific research, it is pseudo science gobbledy gook.

I've noticed that you do the Political Chic dance when you respond (or rather, when you sidestep) the responses of others. Are you two related?

Calling evolution a religion, and describing those who support the theory as members of a sect is a common tactic used by science deniers, be they climate change deniers or creationists pretending to know anything about the scientific theory of evolution. It also indicates a level of disingenuousness wrt to their own called for serious discussion. Such ad hominem are most often seen when they are confronted with scientific arguments they either cannot counter, do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge. The above response is a perfect example. For instance, instead of addressing my detailed response directly, we get a deflection via a regurgitation of the nonsense that has already been said, as if it actually addresses my points. It does not. It is also solid evidence that there is no degree of information that can be presented here that will convince you that evolution has merit. In which case, this entire thread is a monumental waste of time. So unless you are truly serious about having a meaningful discussion of the science of evolution, we are done here, and I will leave you with some logic to consider:

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

8. Burden of Proof
Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary scientists had the burden of proof for half a century or more after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists (or anyone else who wants to challenge the theory). It is up to them to show why the theory of evolution is wrong with meaningful scientific data, AND why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionary scientists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence validate that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. Moreover, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must present an alternative theory that better explains the facts than the accepted paradigm. Then you must convince others of the validity of your new hypothesis. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

 

[usfan]

Using logic and reason there is no God.
Try it for yourself.
The omnipotence paradox proves that God cannot exist.

If you are happy with your logic & analysis, who am i to complain? I disagree, & do not see how you can arrive at such a dogmatic conclusion, given the scarcity of information, & our limited knowledge of the universe, but if you are happy with your beliefs, i'm glad for you.

 

[usfan]

I've noticed that you do the Political Chic dance when you respond (or rather, when you sidestep) the responses of others. Are you two related?

Calling evolution a religion, and describing those who support the theory as members of a sect is a common tactic used by science deniers, be they climate change deniers or creationists pretending to know anything about the scientific theory of evolution. It also indicates a level of disingenuousness wrt to their own called for serious discussion. Such ad hominem are most often seen when they are confronted with scientific arguments they either cannot counter, do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge. The above response is a perfect example. For instance, instead of addressing my detailed response directly, we get a deflection via a regurgitation of the nonsense that has already been said, as if it actually addresses my points. It does not. It is also solid evidence that there is no degree of information that can be presented here that will convince you that evolution has merit. In which case, this entire thread is a monumental waste of time. So unless you are truly serious about having a meaningful discussion of the science of evolution, we are done here, and I will leave you with some logic to consider:

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

8. Burden of Proof
Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary scientists had the burden of proof for half a century or more after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists (or anyone else who wants to challenge the theory). It is up to them to show why the theory of evolution is wrong with meaningful scientific data, AND why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionary scientists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence validate that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. Moreover, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must present an alternative theory that better explains the facts than the accepted paradigm. Then you must convince others of the validity of your new hypothesis. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

I call evolution a religion, because it is based on faith, assertions, & dogmatic, unscientific assumptions. It has a mysterious, unknown, undefined 'power' that 'creates' life, like any religious view of origins. It is not ad hominem, but an accurate description. If you want to validate this belief system as a scientific fact, it is up to you to demonstrate, with repeatable scientific tests, the possibility of this 'theory'.
The burden of proof is on those making the fantastic claim, which the ToE is doing. I am questioning the assumptions. I am disputing the assertions of 'fact'. You are making the claim that life can move freely within the genetic parameters that dna provides. But we know that the genetic code is a high wall, & that life forms do not flit about randomly, creating traits, & moving up or down in the evolutionary ladder. That is merely asserted. It is not genetically or scientifically possible, with our current data set.

But merely dodging the points of logic, & skirting the lack of evidence for the claim is not only unscientific, but shows the religious nature of the belief system. Cries of 'Blasphemy!' are very common in these kinds of 'debates' & they are evident here. My points here have been dispassionately logical, & i've listed in numbered points & made challenges to prove the claims made.

'I don't know' is a valid conclusion in any scientific inquiry. Sometimes, the data does not compel a conclusion, so you keep looking. I am NOT required to have a better alternative, to dispute your claims. I can examine your claims on their own merit, without having to compare it to other theories or speculations.

 

[there4eyeM]

As stated elsewhere, this type of semantics abuse obscures communication. When words get twisted this way, they lose their meaning.
Religion is religion.
Science is science.
Theory is theory.
Faith is faith.
Belief is a choice.

 

[usfan]

As stated elsewhere, this type of semantics abuse obscures communication. When words get twisted this way, they lose their meaning.
Religion is religion.
Science is science.
Theory is theory.
Faith is faith.
Belief is a choice.

It is fine to define terms, which i have done. I have provided reasons why i think evolution falls into the 'belief' category, & i am awaiting any evidence to the contrary. The OP has a list of points, which are still standing, unrebutted. Evolution stands as ''science by assertion' because the basic premise, that of vertical genetic movement, is unsubstantiated. It is NOT science, but it is asserted faith. It is something someone BELIEVES, but they have no valid evidence for it, much like other religious beliefs. Perhaps this correlation is upsetting to some, who think they take the high road philosophically, by clinging to their evolutionary tenets, but that is a personal problem, not a logical one.

But all of this is still a dodge.. a skirting of the topic to avoid obvious reality. Defining philosophical terms is not the purpose of this thread, nor is it a debate over the existence of god, or the OPs mental state. It is a simple challenge, with a list of problems with the ToE. I am not surprised that no one wants to address the meat of the logic in the list, but just deflect with ad hominem & distractions. That is fairly typical when discussions become philosophical, rather than scientific. But this is supposed to be a scientific debate, over evidence for the theory, not a philosophical one over what belief system seems most plausible.

 

[there4eyeM]

My first post on the thread was an objective statement of how I see things.
Referring to science as religion is wrong. Saying what you said above, that is like other religious beliefs, is more than philosophical. It is, itself, a derailment of objective discussion.

 

[usfan]

Natural selection: Reducing variability, not increasing it.
The primary condition for speciation is reproductive isolation. That is one of the primary factors in defining a species, that they do not reproduce with other different species. The horse has a genetic link to other horse descendants. These all indicate a narrowing of the genetic material.. a 'devolution' if you will. A donkey came from the same parent species as the horse & zebra, but they are not able to reproduce fertile offspring.. they CAN reproduce, but the progeny is sterile.. like the mule. But instead of this indicating an EXPANSION of trait availability, the facts are the exact opposite. It was a narrowing of the gene pool that isolated the horse, donkey, & zebra. All of those animals descended from the same parent species.. we can trace that. But instead of opening up new traits of variability, they lost them. The zebra traits don't come up in donkeys anymore. And new 'species' are not being produced. What we see with the horse genetic line is a branching into a dead end. The variability is lost, as the progeny do not have the variety to pick from in their parent's dna.

You can explain the tree branches somewhat with evolution. But you still don't have the mechanism that enables the leaps between the family/genus/species. As science, the 'amoeba to man' theory is full of holes, yet it is taught as though it is proven fact. The observable, repeatable FACTS are that breeding & natural selection NARROW the genetic availability, until the species reaches equilibrium & loses variability. That is why a brown rabbit is seldom (never?) born in the snowshoe rabbit species anymore. It is why chihuahuas do not produce an occasional wolf. That variability is lost, & the breed is limited to the narrow band of variability. The very science of breeding is contrary to the premise of evolution: that new genetic material is constantly being produced, increasing the complexity & variability within a species. We observe the exact opposite. We repeat the exact opposite.

Even if some 'new' trait is discovered while breeding, we now know it was already there.. hiding in the massive genetic code. It might take thousands or millions of generations for it to pop up, but when it does, this did not mean a new trait made itself, just that the hidden gene took a while to hit the jackpot. It is like pulling on a slot machine in vegas.. if you pull it enough times, eventually the sequence will come up that hits the combination you want. That is all breeding & natural selection is, except they get to narrow the variability & reduce the 'losing' combinations. Slot machines don't let you do that.

Why do species go extinct? Because they lose the variability needed to adapt to the changing environment. They don't create genes to survive if conditions change. If there is some variability already in them that increases their survival rate, then that trait will become more prominent. But if they don't have that trait, they die off. That is observable reality, not that species create new genetic information to adapt.

Modern genetics is one of the biggest enemies of the old 'theory' of evolution. Eventually, the facts will overwhelm the beliefs, & the scientific establishment will come up with a new pop theory of origins. But they still are working this one for now. It is everywhere.. tv, national parks, museums, schools.. anywhere science is mentioned, evolution is tacked on, to prop it up as a belief. But real science does not support the theory. All of reality screams, 'NO!'. But since when have humans cared about reality?

 

[usfan]

My first post on the thread was an objective statement of how I see things.
Referring to science as religion is wrong. Saying what you said above, that is like other religious beliefs, is more than philosophical. It is, itself, a derailment of objective discussion.

Then it was a 'subjective' statement, if it is 'how you see things'. I have no problem with subjective beliefs, or opinions about reality, but there is a difference between those & empirical, objective, scientific reality.