Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

Obviously you are making stuff up while you are writing your posting.

Are you serious? What is "made up" about what I explained? Do you think I just "made up" the idea that people see objective reality but from different perspectives?

Why you even forgot about like and dislike in relation to subjectivity....

Where did I forget about it? What does that have to do with what I explained?

That's what happens when you make stuff up, you forget things. Your functional definition of subjectivity is now, some of the stuff that happens in the mind. It is useless.

Since you clearly didn't understand what I wrote, it is clearly you who doesn't understand subjectivity. Tell me, if you place the same object in front of two different people, will they always produce exactly the same drawing?

60/40 predictions are perfecly valid predictions. A 100/0 prediction, I don't know if that is a valid prediction. You are obvously trying to make it appear people act in a forced way, because you cannot handle freedom.

No I didn't, and I never said anything to suggest that. Stop putting words in my mouth just because you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. I've never asserted that we can predict anything with absolute certainty, or that any decision made is made with no possible consideration for another decision. You need to stop imagining arguments and instead deal with the arguments I'm actually making.

And the reason you cannot handle freedom is because you blatantly and explicitly reject subjectivity.

Name one time I have "blatantly and explicitly rejected subjectivity". Quote me.

Also, you have yet to provide any evidence that the soul exists. Since you believe the soul is what causes us to be able to "choose", you must either demonstrate that a soul exists or concede that your argument is baseless.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you serious? What is "made up" about what I explained? Do you think I just "made up" the idea that people see objective reality but from different perspectives?


Where did I forget about it? What does that have to do with what I explained?


Since you clearly didn't understand what I wrote, it is clearly you who doesn't understand subjectivity. Tell me, if you place the same object in front of two different people, will they always produce exactly the same drawing?


No I didn't, and I never said anything to suggest that. Stop putting words in my mouth just because you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. I've never asserted that we can predict anything with absolute certainty, or that any decision made is made with no possible consideration for another decision. You need to stop imagining arguments and instead deal with the arguments I'm actually making.


Name one time I have "blatantly and explicitly rejected subjectivity". Quote me.

Also, you have yet to provide any evidence that the soul exists. Since you believe the soul is what causes us to be able to "choose", you must either demonstrate that a soul exists or concede that your argument is baseless.

Your conceptual scheme of how subjectivity functions, which does not even provide a place for like and dislike, is just a mess.

First it was only perception, then it was perception and interpretation, and then perspective was added. You make stuff up, you have no ready to go understanding of subjectivity.

And so the evolutionist goes on rejecting subjectivity, down the path of abhorrent evil in the name of science.

 

[JM2C]

You are holding your own subjective view of cursing then proceed to demand we all follow your subjective views. Incompetent is not a curse word, it is just a negative descriptor as the lack of competence.

The only reason for taking such a position is that it triggered an emotional action within you since it is evident that it is true.

We were arguing or debating and the next thing I got from you is this

I guess you have reading comprehension issues. Were you home-schooled or are you incompetent?

I don’t mind getting this from you but please do not complain when you get the same kindness in return.

 

[JM2C]

You seems have had an isolated education in regards to word use and definition. No one is obligated to follow you narrow and frankly uneducated idea of words and their use.

I was thinking of that. I was wondering why you guys were responding to my posts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about my grammar.

Now, let’s read your own grammar here. “you seems have had”. Conjugation of the verb “seem” in the present tense is “you seem” [like you run and not you runs, you think and not you thinks] but since you were trying to use the present perfect continuous tense here, you used “You seems have had” instead of “you have been seeming” or “you have seemed” in the present perfect tense.

Just like the word that you’ve invented recently, “congradulations”, I could understand if by mistake you hit the R or the Y in your keyboard but the D under the E, there is no excuse for that man.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your conceptual scheme of how subjectivity functions, which does not even provide a place for like and dislike, is just a mess.

How does it not provide a place for like and dislike? Again, you're talking nonsense.

First it was only perception, then it was perception and interpretation, and then perspective was added. You make stuff up, you have no ready to go understanding of subjectivity.

I never said it was "only" anything. I explained that subjectivity was a result of ALL of those things. I never "added" them and I'm not making stuff up. Consult any definition of subjectivity you wish - your definition is inane, arbitrary and made up. Mine is actually consistent and makes sense.

And so the evolutionist goes on rejecting subjectivity, down the path of abhorrent evil in the name of science.

I do not reject subjectivity. Please stop lying about me.

Also, you haven't answered my two requests:

1) If you place the same object in front of two different people, will they always produce exactly the same drawing?

2) Since you believe the soul is what causes us to be able to "choose", you must either demonstrate that a soul exists or concede that your argument is baseless.

 

[JM2C]

this is nothing more than you trying in vain to justify your own breaking of the rules.


None of us are buying that snake oil.

I did not break any rules. Read the rules again..

“Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums.”

“Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack.”

“Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.”

Do you understand this? Do you think cursing is not a personal attack?

 

[jonathan180iq]

This has been going on for pages...
Can we discuss human origins here and let you guys talk about who broke the rules first in PMs or something?

 

[JM2C]

Yes, whining.
Yes, really

I have not reported you.

There are only 2 sides in this thread, you and your friends, the evolutionists, and the creationists. Therefore, the whining came from your side because I’m the one who got the email from the moderator.

 

[JM2C]

You have also repeatedly called names...

Interesting how you would lie about now.

I only called names in response to insults which is totally unrelated to Moderator’s guideline “Critique each other's ideas all you want.”. The way I understood this is, you can criticize my ideas with your ideas, but if your idea of criticizing ones idea is to insult the poster, instead of the poster’s idea, then you are not following the guideline.

You know Elvis Presley or was it John Lennon who wrote, "Don’t criticize what you don't understand" but I think it was Mick Jagger who wrote this but I’m not really sure.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How does it not provide a place for like and dislike? Again, you're talking nonsense.


I never said it was "only" anything. I explained that subjectivity was a result of ALL of those things. I never "added" them and I'm not making stuff up. Consult any definition of subjectivity you wish - your definition is inane, arbitrary and made up. Mine is actually consistent and makes sense.


I do not reject subjectivity. Please stop lying about me.

Also, you haven't answered my two requests:

1) If you place the same object in front of two different people, will they always produce exactly the same drawing?

2) Since you believe the soul is what causes us to be able to "choose", you must either demonstrate that a soul exists or concede that your argument is baseless.

Authoritarian huffing and puffing on how subjectivity works from the people who have the worst track record in history on distinguishing subjective from objective, the social darwinists.

Subjectivity means to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion. That is why the soul is a valid subjective concept, because the soul is reffered to as choosing, and the existence of it is established by choosing that it does.

The statement "the painting is beautiful", deconstructs to choosing about what it is that chooses, by that the conclusion "the painting is ugly", is an equally logically valid statement. The statement was thus arrived at by choosing it, from available options like beautiful, ugly, and other. The word beautiful, deconstructs to a love for the way the painting looks. The love is doing the choosing, choosing the words "the painting is beautiful". Therefore the statement is also about what chooses, and it is thus a proper opinion.

That is a conceptual scheme that works without contradiction, and is fully in line with common subjective statements.

Just like your social darwinist predecessors you will inevitably equate opinion with fact, and make what is good and evil into fact, because you only acknowledge the material domain, and anything in this domain is a matter of fact issue. You will equate goodness and evil of a man with directly measurable quantities, instead of an opinion on their unmeausurable soul.

And in any case, if you think creationism is wrong, then you can only object to the procedure of choosing about who you are as being the owner of your decisions, that it is incomprehensible to you. That when I say you are evil, you can only dismiss it as incomprehensible, but not appeal to any rules of civility to restrain judgement.

 

[JM2C]

No, Cursing is not a personal attack per se. Insulting a person is a personal attack whether it contains cursing or not.


As examples the following are perfectly within the forum rules because they are not aimed at a forum member even though they might contain "cursing":

That is the F**king stupidest argument I have ever heard.

Whoever wrote <bible verse x> was a lying sack of s**t.

In my opinion Ken Ham is a hate-mongering scam-artist.


If God exists he is a genocidal narcissistic idiot.


The following is against the forum rules:

"You are Stupid".

Hey <racist terminology>.


We agree to abide by the forum rules, that means no personal attacks. It does not matter if someone personally attacks us we do not respond because that is a breach of the rules we agree to follow. There is no "miss, miss, Johnny did it first" exemption.

You really love to push it, don’t you?

When you use the word “you” and followed it with “names” that is not the name of the person you are referring as “you” is a “Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums.”

 

[JM2C]

Perhaps I am missing it....

Please be so kind as to point out the part in the rules that say you are allowed to call names if you are called names first.

huh? I’m a little bit slow today. Can you kindly rephrase that?

 

[JM2C]

I suspect the Mods have found your repeated use of the racial slur to cursing.
I know I do.

You could easily C&P and post them

 

[JM2C]

I have not seen this.

You refuse facts presented to you, you refuse academia, you seem to be proselytizing your faith more then learning.

What facts are you talking about? None of them were true, from Lucy’s age to the Piltdown [hoax] Man to the Nebraska [hoax] Man to the T-rex [unproven] age with the soft tissue samples that they don’t want to test with 14C.

 

[gnostic]

This has been going on for pages...
Can we discuss human origins here and let you guys talk about who broke the rules first in PMs or something?

I have already moved on.

I'm just sitting here, twiddling my thumbs...not obscenely. Right now, bored to tears.

Edit: "bored", not "imported" to tears... Bloody iPad spell-checker.

 

[JM2C]

YOU are the one who repeatedly quoted the forum rules as justification for your action. All I have done is uphold them, which is exactly what you THINK you are doing, by informing you that racial slurs are against forum rules, and for reporting you to the moderators when I felt you were contravening that rule. As a member of the forum, I have the right to report posts that I believe contravene the forum rules, and the forum moderators have the right to review the posts I report to determine whether or not they do, in fact, contravene the rules. If you have an issue with that, I suggest you stop posting on forums altogether.

You only reported those who were against your interpretation. Now you are suggesting that I should stop posting. Why? Because I don’t follow your own rules, right? That’s very convenient of you. You know what’s going to happen if nobody is contradicting or criticizing your ideas anymore, because of you own rules, i.e., it’s my interpretation or you will be reported to the moderators? You guys will be debating nothing but your own the same old interpretations over and over again until one day you will ask yourself, what are we doing here we’ve been talking these same old things every day.

 

[gnostic]

I do not reject subjectivity. Please stop lying about me.

I take it you're talking to Mohammad Nur Syamu, and he's going on and on about his nonsensical "subjectivity", and making up stuff about you, as he did to me.

I don't think he understand that what he is doing is "lying". A very persistently dishonest little fellow, that make all Muslims look bad.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Authoritarian huffing and puffing on how subjectivity works from the people who have the worst track record in history on distinguishing subjective from objective, the social darwinists.

Stock Mohammad Nur Syamsu response #0002: Accuse whoever is disagreeing with of you of "authoritarian huffing and puffing", without any understanding of what "authoritarian" means.

Stock Mohammad Nur Syamsu response #0003: Accuse whoever is disagreeing with you of being a "social Darwinist", without any understanding of what a "social Darwinist" is.

I should start printing out bingo cards.

Subjectivity means to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

As has been explained to you at length before, you don't always "choose" an opinion. I don't "choose" find Marmite disgusting to eat, it is an opinion I have based on my reaction to Marmite when I eat it. I don't "choose" to have that opinion.

That is why the soul is a valid subjective concept, because the soul is reffered to as choosing, and the existence of it is established by choosing that it does.

Yet more arbitrary re-definitions pulled out of thin air. There is nothing in the definition of the soul that says it necessary for the process of "choosing" anything. I am perfectly capable of making choices with my brain, and I do not believe a soul of any kind is involved with the process. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe such a thing as a soul even exists. What evidence do you have that one does?

The statement "the painting is beautiful", deconstructs to choosing about what it is that chooses, by that the conclusion "the painting is ugly", is an equally logically valid statement.

"Deconstructs to choosing about what it is that chooses" is a completely nonsensical sentence. It is literally nonsense, it's not even remotely coherent. How can you expect to reasonably explain or define these concepts when the sentences you use literally make no sense and read like a random string of words.

The statement was thus arrived at by choosing it, from available options like beautiful, ugly, and other. The word beautiful, deconstructs to a love for the way the painting looks. The love is doing the choosing, choosing the words "the painting is beautiful". Therefore the statement is also about what chooses, and it is thus a proper opinion.

When was the last time you CHOSE to find a woman beautiful? If you so wished, could you CHOOSE to find the same woman ugly?

That is a conceptual scheme that works without contradiction, and is fully in line with common subjective statements.

It's not even a concept which is coherent in any way, shape or form. It's garbage.

Just like your social darwinist predecessors you will inevitably equate opinion with fact, and make what is good and evil into fact, because you only acknowledge the material domain, and anything in this domain is a matter of fact issue. You will equate goodness and evil of a man with directly measurable quantities, instead of an opinion on their unmeausurable soul.

Making spurious accusations and putting words in my mouth only serve to show how little credibility your own argument has. Stop making up arguments and deal with the ones I actually make.

And in any case, if you think creationism is wrong, then you can only object to the procedure of choosing about who you are as being the owner of your decisions, that it is incomprehensible to you.

The only thing that is incomprehensible is your reasoning. It makes no sense, and your arguments have absolutely zero basis in reality. You're just making stuff up, inventing arbitrary definition of words that already have sound definitions and accusing others of making arguments of having positions they don't have. Your entire argument relies on fabrication and distortion, which is why you're so incapable of responding to either of my previous requests. You, sir, are exposed.

That when I say you are evil, you can only dismiss it as incomprehensible, but not appeal to any rules of civility to restrain judgement.

I can dismiss it as a foolish conclusion based on your ridiculous delusions and total absence of logic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What facts are you talking about? None of them were true, from Lucy’s age to the Piltdown [hoax] Man to the Nebraska [hoax] Man to the T-rex [unproven] age with the soft tissue samples that they don’t want to test with 14C.

Lucy's age is true. There is no such evidence against the age of lucy.
Pitdown man was a hoax. It was found out by professionals who knew how to identify a fake fossil vs a real fossil. They were able to determine this a hoax due to the overwhelming number and knowledge of REAL fossils that match evolution. So if you wish to claim this a hoax you must give evolution credit for being able to provide all of the evidence that led us to find out it was fake.
Nebraska man was not a hoax. I don't know what crazy source you got that from. He was incorrectly categorized and was later re-categorized. It was a real fossil with a correct age.

The soft tissue samples are amazing and great. However there is no evidence to suggest that they are young. If they did do the test they would get crazy wonky numbers that were wrong. Which is what the creationist camp is banking on.

Anything else? What about the tens of thousands of other fossils found? Just fakes or were they buried by satan?

 

[gnostic]

Pitdown man was a hoax. It was found out by professionals who knew how to identify a fake fossil vs a real fossil. They were able to determine this a hoax due to the overwhelming number and knowledge of REAL fossils that match evolution. So if you wish to claim this a hoax you must give evolution credit for being able to provide all of the evidence that led us to find out it

Isn't it funny that creationists still use the Pitdown man argument against evolution, but ignored thousands of other fossils that have been properly and correctly identified, and precisely dated?

A single hoax that they continually use, just show desperate and uneducated they (creationists and ID advocates) are, that they blindly refused to see other verifiable evidences, because they know they can't win any argument when they have look at non-hoaxed fossils.

Just pathetic.