Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.


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.


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?


"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.


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?


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


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.


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.


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

You plainly reject subjectivity, which is shown by that you always request evidence for a matter of opinion, like the existence of the soul. Requesting evidence is of course part of objectivity.

Using your definitions we would deconstruct a statement that the painting is beautiful, to be a statement of fact about electrochemistry in the brain, as what love consists of. Then a statement of opinion = a statement of fact, opinion = fact. A contradiction of terms will ensue.

We know for a fact that freedom is real and relevant, which is why we know evolution theory is not a contender for a theory on origins, because the theory does not focus on choosing as the mechanism of creation. And the history of social darwinism shows that evolutionist understanding of subjectivity is that it is a sort of objectivity. You got nothing for argumentation except your authoritarian huffing and puffing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You plainly reject subjectivity, which is shown by that you always request evidence for a matter of opinion, like the existence of the soul. Requesting evidence is of course part of objectivity.

Claiming a soul exists is an objective claim, not a matter of opinion. You are making a claim that something objectively exists, therefore I demand evidence of it. Tell me, have you never required evidence before you believed anything?

Using your definitions we would deconstruct a statement that the painting is beautiful, to be a statement of fact about electrochemistry in the brain, as what love consists of. Then a statement of opinion = a statement of fact, opinion = fact. A contradiction of terms will ensue.

This is a non-sequitur. Why would a statement of opinion become a statement of fact just because it is a result of electrochemistry in the brain? Do you not think that sight is a result of electrochemical processes? Why would that make the opinion of what you are looking at "a fact"? An opinion, by definition, is not a fact. The mere fact that the same electrochemical process in two different people can produce a different reaction to the same objective stimulus is proof that fact and opinion are different things, and I never claimed otherwise. Stop putting words in my mouth.

We know for a fact that freedom is real and relevant, which is why we know evolution theory is not a contender for a theory on origins, because the theory does not focus on choosing as the mechanism of creation.

Another non-sequitur. You have not defined "freedom", and you have yet to explain how its supposed existence in this context falsifies evolution or necessitates creation. Show your working:

1 - Freedom exists and is real.
2 - ????????????????????
3 - Therefore, evolution is wrong.

Please fill in number 2.

And the history of social darwinism shows that evolutionist understanding of subjectivity is that it is a sort of objectivity.

Not all people who accept evolution are social Darwinists. That's like saying "And the history of Islamic extremism shows that all Muslims are evil".

You got nothing for argumentation except your authoritarian huffing and puffing.

Meanwhile, your huffing and puffing is... Non-authoritarian?

I am rapidly losing patience with you. Please present a reasoned argument and respond to my requests, or I'll finish with you and put you on ignore. You have already had the floor mopped with your inane definitions. All you're doing at this stage is digging a deeper grave.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I should start printing out bingo cards.

There would be too many winners...

 

[outhouse]

What facts are you talking about? None of them were true,

That is fanaticism and fundamentalism.

The age of the earth is not up for debate.

The facts regarding evolution are not up for debate because you refuse science and academia.


How can you go against almost all science and claim honesty?

 

[outhouse]

Piltdown [hoax] Man

Scientist are the ones who corrected the error when the media blew it out of proportion because of one mans opinion.

An error for almost a hundred years ago does not discount that evolution is a fact


REMEMBER evolution is taught in EVERY credible university as higher education!


While creationist is outlawed from childrens minds so we don't poison them with pseudoscience

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Claiming a soul exists is an objective claim, not a matter of opinion. You are making a claim that something objectively exists, therefore I demand evidence of it. Tell me, have you never required evidence before you believed anything?


This is a non-sequitur. Why would a statement of opinion become a statement of fact just because it is a result of electrochemistry in the brain? Do you not think that sight is a result of electrochemical processes? Why would that make the opinion of what you are looking at "a fact"? An opinion, by definition, is not a fact. The mere fact that the same electrochemical process in two different people can produce a different reaction to the same objective stimulus is proof that fact and opinion are different things, and I never claimed otherwise. Stop putting words in my mouth.


Another non-sequitur. You have not defined "freedom", and you have yet to explain how its supposed existence in this context falsifies evolution or necessitates creation. Show your working:

1 - Freedom exists and is real.
2 - ????????????????????
3 - Therefore, evolution is wrong.

Please fill in number 2.


Not all people who accept evolution are social Darwinists. That's like saying "And the history of Islamic extremism shows that all Muslims are evil".


Meanwhile, your huffing and puffing is... Non-authoritarian?

I am rapidly losing patience with you. Please present a reasoned argument and respond to my requests, or I'll finish with you and put you on ignore. You have already had the floor mopped with your inane definitions. All you're doing at this stage is digging a deeper grave.

In your scheme the love must be a material artefact, or material process. It's existence must be fact, because you don't acknowledge a distinct spiritual domain on a subjective basis. And then the statement the painting is beautiful is a statement of fact about love for the way the painting looks existing in the brain, opinion=fact.

I have already presented large amounts of solidl reasoned arguments. You have presented incoherent waffling about perspective, perception, interpretation. All terms which have something to do with subjectivity, but there is no integrated conceptual scheme presented on your part.

The simple categories of creationism accomodates subjectivity with an entire fundamental category. That is real acceptance of subjectivity.

creator
chooses
opinion
spiritual domain

creation
chosen
fact
material domain

 

[gnostic]

Scientist are the ones who corrected the error when the media blew it out of proportion because of one mans opinion.

An error for almost a hundred years ago does not discount that evolution is a fact


REMEMBER evolution is taught in EVERY credible university as higher education!


While creationist is outlawed from childrens minds so we don't poison them with pseudoscience

That's not the real issue, outhouse.

That was just one hoax, that was uncovered by a real scientist.

There are thousands of Homo fossils found, identified and dated correctly, that showed evolution is a valid and credible theory. And there are millions of findings of fossils of all sorts of animals that support evolution to be valid biological explanations for why changes happened in species.

There are millions of fossils that have properly dated, that show these findings are not hoaxes. So one hoax doesn't disprove evolution of millions of non-hoaxed fossils.

Why doesn't jm2c tried to disprove all these other fossils?

Because he can't, because he would have no support from non-hoaxed evidences. That's why he repeatedly used long-refuted pitdown man. Jm2c have already shown to have no credibility whatsoever by others people who responded to his wild and baseless claims.

He is trying to claiming victory for creationism. One hoax is not victory for creationists or creationism, because there are far more fossils that prove evolution is right.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's not the real issue, outhouse.

That was just one hoax, that was uncovered by a real scientist.

There are thousands of Homo fossils found, identified and dated correctly, that showed evolution is a valid and credible theory. And there are millions of findings of fossils of all sorts of animals that support evolution to be valid biological explanations for why changes happened in species.

There are millions of fossils that have properly dated, that show these findings are not hoaxes. So one hoax doesn't disprove evolution of millions of non-hoaxed fossils.

Why doesn't jm2c tried to disprove all these other fossils?

Because he can't, because he would have no support from non-hoaxed evidences. That's why he repeatedly used long-refuted pitdown man. Jm2c have already shown to have no credibility whatsoever by others people who responded to his wild and baseless claims.

He is trying to claiming victory for creationism. One hoax is not victory for creationists or creationism, because there are far more fossils that prove evolution is right.

One is a hoax therefore it is only logical that all of them are hoaxes.

Just like Christians. There is one false Christian so we can only ever assume that all Christians are false.

 

[gnostic]

In your scheme the love must be a material artefact, or material process. It's existence must be fact, because you don't acknowledge a distinct spiritual domain on a subjective basis. And then the statement the painting is beautiful is a statement of fact about love for the way the painting looks existing in the brain, opinion=fact.

I have already presented large amounts of solidl reasoned arguments. You have presented incoherent waffling about perspective, perception, interpretation. All terms which have something to do with subjectivity, but there is no integrated conceptual scheme presented on your part.

The simple categories of creationism accomodates subjectivity with an entire fundamental category. That is real acceptance of subjectivity.

creator
chooses
opinion
spiritual domain

creation
chosen
fact
material domain

ROFLMAO

I just had to seek a peek at what Mohammad's latest antic and circular reasoning, and I must say he as incoherent and illogical as ever.

Opinions are not facts, Muhammad, they are just opinions. If you want facts, you need evidences, not opinions or belief, which mean you have to be objectively, not subjectively, when seeking out factual truth.

There is no such thing as religious factual truth, because religious truth is all about faulty belief and blind faith, and never about evidences, and suc belief and faith is more akin to pseudoscience superstitions, not on scientific evidences.

Creation is not fact, but superstitious opinions/belief.

Factual truth is about credible and empirical evidences, not on your silly religious belief.

 

[David M]

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

There was a reason those sentences were in quotes. But you do have a history of being unable to work out context.

Still waiting for you to admit that I never claimed and relation to royal blood in my genealogy related posts.

 

[McBell]

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.

False dichotomy.
It could very well have been someone on "your side" or a neutral party who reported you.

That happens when you repeatedly use racial slurs.
Which is against the rules.
Which is why you got the message from the Mods.

So yes, you did break the rules.
Denying that fact does nothing but hurt your own credibility.

 

[McBell]

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.

calling names is against the rules.
It matters not how you justify it.

 

[gnostic]

There was a reason those sentences were in quotes. But you do have a history of being unable to work out context.

Still waiting for you to admit that I never claimed and relation to royal blood in my genealogy related posts.

Me too.

I only said that the similarities in how names sound, doesn't make my family belong to any royal family, and that genealogies are unreliable, especially in rural areas of China.

None what I have written, state that I am descendants of Zhou, nor did I make claim that I did family tree of our family.

All I know is my maternal grandmother, whom I met before when I was just a kid. The others died before I was born. Only my older sister did family tree on ancestors, with help from our cousins, and not once she let me read her findings. As far as I know, they have uncovered only 28 generations of Chau. That's more than 500 years, but less than 800 years, but that's more of oral tradition, because there are very little in terms of written records. It is not like in England, where records are maintained, better than rural China. And there are many who have Chau, or variations of pronunciations.

And the problem with Chinese genealogies is that sometime when marrying, the wife keep their maiden family names by adding them to their husbands' family names, and some their children opted in favor for mother's family name, so as you can see, there are lot of problems tracing family ancestry. There are no consistencies.

This is why I don't do family tree of my family, because it is too confusing.

Sorry, but I don't trust jm2c, because he has twisted my words around too, making false allegations. Share a little thing about myself, and he is bound to use it against me, by blowing them all out of proportions. I won't do that ever again. And look what happened he found out that I was Chinese?

He can't be honest, and he can't apologise for any mistake he make. That tell us what sort of person he is.

 

[Shad]

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.

All of which can be corrected by proof reading, which I did not do, and using a proper keyboard rather than a tiny one on my phone. This is different from confusing the words bend and length as synonyms after linking a lexicon for the words in their language. Also notice the key difference in our responses? I admit to my mistakes, you did not. More so you have used examples not directly related to the topic while my example was. So yet another deflection away from your mistake thus a red herring and a tu quoque fallacy. My grammar and spelling in the end has nothing to do with my argument, is not a counter-argument nor render my argument invalid.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bend - definition of Bend by The Free Dictionary
length - definition of length by The Free Dictionary

 

[Shad]

We were arguing or debating and the next thing I got from you is thisI don’t mind getting this from you but please do not complain when you get the same kindness in return.

It does not bug me, I do not have thin-skin while I can admit to mistakes. However the conclusion was fair since you thought the two words were synonymous which directly attacks your argument. Where as your complaints were not about any argument directly. See the above comment regarding your fallacy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

ROFLMAO

I just had to seek a peek at what Mohammad's latest antic and circular reasoning, and I must say he as incoherent and illogical as ever.

Opinions are not facts, Muhammad, they are just opinions. If you want facts, you need evidences, not opinions or belief, which mean you have to be objectively, not subjectively, when seeking out factual truth.

There is no such thing as religious factual truth, because religious truth is all about faulty belief and blind faith, and never about evidences, and suc belief and faith is more akin to pseudoscience superstitions, not on scientific evidences.

Creation is not fact, but superstitious opinions/belief.

Factual truth is about credible and empirical evidences, not on your silly religious belief.

Creationism has 2 parts, the creator and the creation. Opinion applies to the creator category, and fact applies to the creation category.

Creationism validates both opinion and fact. What evolutionists do is they only accept facts, and then only facts in term of things being forced. Having no category for opinions, evolutionists then put opinions together with facts, which lead them to assert as pseudoscientific fact what people are good and what people are evil.

 

[Shad]

You conflate creation with the term science uses. Thus creation is only an opinion not a fact. Your argument collapses since a premise is unsound.

fact applies to the creation category.

 

[JM2C]

Lucy's age is true. There is no such evidence against the age of lucy.

We went thru with this already. K-Ar dating methods were not really accurate based on the test of Mt. St Helen’s igneous rocks.

 

[Shad]

We went thru with this already. K-Ar dating methods were not really accurate based on the test of Mt. St Helen’s igneous rocks.

Austin's flawed methods have been exposed for years. Your point is irrelevant.

 

[JM2C]

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.

“give evolution credit for being able to provide all of the evidence” There is no argument there at all, but read the following anyway:

Dr. Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum, Joseph Weiner, an Oxford professor of physical anthropology, and Oxford anthropologist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark were the one who discovered that the Piltdown Man was indeed a hoax. It was Dr. Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum who first discovered it in 1949, and in 1953 Dr. Joseph Weiner and Dr. Oakley after studying on the fossils discovered that it was indeed a fake, and in “November 20, 1953 they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum.”

From the book Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take the Heat on page 112 it says,

Evolutionist and paleontologist Joseph Weiner sums up the study of human evolution: “it is quite that modern man could not have arisen from any ape, let alone a monkey, at all similar to those of today. ….It is ridiculous to describe man as a “naked” or any other kind of ape.:”

In the following statement on human evolution Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. agrees with Weiner: “On the fundamental level, it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and the so-called missing links are indeed non-existent.”

In the same page, Dr. Robert Martin, senior research fellow at the Zoological Society of London, concludes: In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity.