• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
In your opinion, it is wrong.....in my opinion, it is right. What is God's opinion?...we will have to wait and see, won't we?
What is allah's opinion? What is Zeus's opinion? What is Thor's opinion? What is Set's opinion? What is Zeno's opinion? Se where this leads? Though all of these opinions have something in common. No evidence. My opinion and the opinion of the scientific community is backed by evidence. You deny this but have yet to come up with an argument against it.
Or maybe he just omitted the details so that unbelievers would feel superior in their evaluation of the situation? The Bible says that God has hidden things from "the wise and intellectual ones and revealed them to infants". Why would he do that? Because it is the wise and intellectual ones who have influence on the masses. He will not prevent people from believing whatever they wish......in fact he will judge them on it.
He has nothing to prove to you or anyone else who wants to discount his existence. He will allow you to be deluded right up to the end. (2 Thess 2:9-12) He does not need us...we need him.
Simply more rationalization and empty words.

Necessary for whom? Those who have a desire to be accepted by men?....those who have sold out to the weight of public opinion. That same public opinion led to the death of Jesus Christ...a point wasted on unbelievers, I know.
Who has sold out to the weight of public opinion? The theory of evolution has continued to fight against unpopularity despite its glaring evidence since its inception.
In your opinion my common sense is wrong. The things that are vital for life, you believe we're just a series of fortunate accidents...I don't believe they are accidental at all. Everything just works for the perpetuation of life without any intervention from the Creator. Perfect systems all working together are not an accident in any facet of human experience, but they just happen in nature.....? You don't find that just a little bit much to swallow?
I said your common sense is wrong. I think your meager assumptions based on your minimal personal experience in the world doesn't trump hundreds of years of scientific evidence that has been tried and tested.
How much co-incidence is too much?
I could ask you the same.
How old is the theory of evolution? It is an infant by comparison to the Bible.
The helocentric theory is an infnat compared to the terracentric theory of the solar system. Which is correct?
Scientific "facts" go out the window when we speak of organic evolution. There are no "facts"....all you really have is a "theory"......."a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;"

This is what science is trying to pass off as fact. Pride will not let them admit it. Changing the definition of the word doesn't alter a thing.
You keep saying false things and you keep thinking they are true. I wash my hands of this.
As for the "literal dirt"...you and I both know that science has revealed the same elements in the makeup of humans as we find in that "dirt". So the Bible is spot on there.
Except we are made more of water than of dirt. We are made mostly of hydrogen and oxygen. Neither are found in large amounts in dirt.
You keep asserting that there are "proven facts" to back up the whole thing, but all you have is educated guesses posing as facts. Just because those who want the Creator to go away produce biased findings in their so called evidence, doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct. All I see is the emperor's new clothes. You all believe that there are facts to back up this theory....they make it all sound so convincing....but there are none. Nothing presented so far as proof, is any such thing.



What depth of scientific ignorance portrays an unproven theory as fact in the minds of children? This is brainwashing at its finest. I will never allow my children or grandchildren to be persuaded by the clever computer graphics presented to them. I will tell them the truth so that they can see there are two sides to this issue. It is immoral not to give them a choice.



There is NO evidence! It is all speculation based on the biased interpretation of what is studied. Conclusions are reached that support a pre-conceived notion. Bias is demonstrated at every turn. Assumption is not fact. Speculation is not truth.



What overwhelming evidence? Present some and I will happily show you the language that shoots it down every time.

All I can say is that you lot are easily 'overwhelmed' by the words of men with academic credentials. It's as if they are God and you must believe every word they write......how are you different from us believers?
I wash my hands of this if you are truly unable to grasp it.
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Evolutionists don't do subjectivity. They use emotive words for manipulation, not to express what they feel. They manipulate with emotive words to try and get people with the evolution program.

The root of subjectivity is the agency of a decision.Subjectivity is essentially a creationist idea. Evolutionists make a conscious effort to surpress and destroy their emotions, because they believe emotions get in the way of objectivity, facts.

Incorrect. We are all human beings too, it's very unlikely that we are evil and manipulative as you have obviously been misinformed.
I don't manipulate what anyone thinks, I either disagree with them, agree with them, or insult them.
I have no use for people around the world believing what I say, as is the same for many of us.

If you want to make false and generalized claims about us we can easily do the same.
You say Evolutionists manipulate? Because there's groups of people with thousands of years of manipulation on record we can bring up.

Not all of us have this terrible issue where we can't feel emotions or make subjective decisions.
Objectivity is just required in science, because unlike your beliefs we require facts and evidence to support our claims.

Don't come here looking to start a fight of words when you know how it will end, friend.
Don't let the door sodomize you on the way out.

Peace.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. We are all human beings too, it's very unlikely that we are evil and manipulative as you have obviously been misinformed.
I don't manipulate what anyone thinks, I either disagree with them, agree with them, or insult them.
I have no use for people around the world believing what I say, as is the same for many of us.

If you want to make false and generalized claims about us we can easily do the same.
You say Evolutionists manipulate? Because there's groups of people with thousands of years of manipulation on record we can bring up.

Not all of us have this terrible issue where we can't feel emotions or make subjective decisions.
Objectivity is just required in science, because unlike your beliefs we require facts and evidence to support our claims.

Don't come here looking to start a fight of words when you know how it will end, friend.
Don't let the door sodomize you on the way out.

Peace.

I know by experience, evolutionists don't do subjectivity. Here you try to manipulate with emotive words obviously. You design the sodom and friend remark to manipulate to get the best chance for evolution, regardless of what your emotions are.

Evolutionists are bad people,
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
I know by experience, evolutionists don't do subjectivity. Here you try to manipulate with emotive words obviously. You design the sodom and friend remark to manipulate to get the best chance for evolution, regardless of what your emotions are.

Evolutionists are bad people,

Incorrect.

Well, you sir, are twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean, that makes you a bad person as well.
Pathetic.

Get out of my internet face.

I don't want to talk to someone who only hears what they want to hear, and believes only what they've heard.
You're not worth the effort it would take to actually set up good insults.

You also have no proof for your claims, and it's not like you've met every single evolutionists and know exactly how they all think individually.
To make such a rash and uneducated claim and expect to be believed is disgusting to me.

Shoo, now.
Before this water gets too deep and you forget how to swim.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
No Bunyip, the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not "testable" any more than organic evolution is testable by human means. You cannot test for something that took place millions of years ago with no reliable eyewitness testimony. Since no human was around to observe or to record the millions of 'creation' events, and we cannot duplicate them, or even produce the missing pieces of the supposed "chain" linking all living things.....we each have a belief system to which we adhere and trust the ones who promote it. :D

Hypothesis Testing in Evolutionary Developmental Biology: A Case Study from Insect Wings
 

gnostic

The Lost One
There are no such things as evolutionists.

I accept both theories of gravity from Newton and Einstein (relativity)as valid with their respective scopes - the former with objects considerably slower than speed of light, but I wouldn't call myself "gravitationist", "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian".

Evolutionary biology is just one field in biology.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Incorrect.

Well, you sir, are twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean, that makes you a bad person as well.
Pathetic.

Get out of my internet face.

I don't want to talk to someone who only hears what they want to hear, and believes only what they've heard.
You're not worth the effort it would take to actually set up good insults.

You also have no proof for your claims, and it's not like you've met every single evolutionists and know exactly how they all think individually.
To make such a rash and uneducated claim and expect to be believed is disgusting to me.

Shoo, now.
Before this water gets too deep and you forget how to swim.

I've debated many evolutionists, more than a hundred. Besides we can all see what the evolution scientists write. They are a disgrace to science, the anti-thesis of science.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I've debated many evolutionists, more than a hundred. Besides we can all see what the evolution scientists write. They are a disgrace to science, the anti-thesis of science.

Not just evolutionists, how about cosmologists, climastrologists, social 'scientists', economic 'scientists', I'd say it is institutionalizing science, leading by academic consensus, that is inherently the antithesis of the method. More and more free thinking people are beginning to realize this.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Not just evolutionists, how about cosmologists, climastrologists, social 'scientists', economic 'scientists', I'd say it is institutionalizing science, leading by academic consensus, that is inherently the antithesis of the method. More and more free thinking people are beginning to realize this.

By anti-thesis of science I more mean like social darwinists. Who propose what is good and evil as scientific fact. I would say neurologists do this as well much. But the mainstay of the scientism is always evolution theory, even with neurologists.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I'd say it is institutionalizing science, leading by academic consensus, that is inherently the antithesis of the method.

Yea, let's do away with academic consensus. Anyone who might agree with someone else will be forced to do two keg stands with a shot of Kahlua between them.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
IOW, if it’s about your genealogical record the china man’s statement does not apply to it.

You are the one who mixed my statement up with his, you are the one who accused me of wanting to be linked to royal blood. Going to admit you were wrong?

IOW, if it’s about your genealogical record the china man’s statement does not apply to it. Read again china man’s statement. but look at how irate this china man is NO china man you made a mistake when you said this “genealogical history are unreliable” and therefore blame it on me, like GENIUS,

He made no mistake, he was talking about genealogies that go back a very long time. In fact he referenced the biblical genealogies in one post. That is very different from a handful of centuries of geneaology in a country lucky enough to have preserved good records for that period that have survived to the present.

But prove me wrong, come up with references to the discovery of records of births, marriages and deaths covering generations of normal people living in a town in Israel 2000 years ago.

because it embarrassed you.

Nope, the only person whose actions have been an embarassment is yourself because you cant keep track of context or what different people are saying.
 
Last edited:

David M

Well-Known Member
Remember this CHINA MAN?

Ignorant, arrogant and racist. Its a creatonist trifecta.

This time I was the one who hit the report button, not the person you used racist language against, so don't try accusing him of anything.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
Ignorant, arrogant and racist. Its a creatonist trifecta.

This time I was the one who hit the report button.

I did as well. It was just wrong and cold hearted.


I have seen some low class moves on this site, but that one is up at the top.
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
I've debated many evolutionists, more than a hundred. Besides we can all see what the evolution scientists write. They are a disgrace to science, the anti-thesis of science.

100 does not mean 100%

Also you're opinion of them is that they are a disgrace, but they have obviously been more productive in life then a certain someone I'm talking to.
Why don't you prove it then? Why don't you become a 'real' scientists and use scientific evidence to prove them wrong?
It's not hard right? Since they are obviously so corrupt and they all lie and use false emotions to sway people.
You should be able to do it easily, right?

Do it.
Get your nose out of your book and actually do something about it since you have this huge issue with it.

All I see is some guy whining about something they can't even prove is true.
Again, pathetic.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Yea, let's do away with academic consensus. Anyone who might agree with someone else will be forced to do two keg stands with a shot of Kahlua between them.

Agreeing is fine, it's the academic part where problems start- most of us always agreed on e.g. a creation event v static/steady state universes, unpredictable underlying forces v classical physics. Academics were forbidden from such heresy. blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
By anti-thesis of science I more mean like social darwinists. Who propose what is good and evil as scientific fact. I would say neurologists do this as well much. But the mainstay of the scientism is always evolution theory, even with neurologists.

If you can make people believe that all life is without design, purpose, including themselves, you create a void to provide that purpose, at least that's how atheists Stalin, Mao, Il Sung rationalized it.
 
Top