Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

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

It was the K-Ar dating method and not Dr. Austin. Can you tell the difference between xenocryst and phenocryst?

 

[David M]

It was the K-Ar dating method and not Dr. Austin's

No,. It was Austin's published results that stated he submitted whole rock samples. Which makes any claim that the sample cause any issues for K/Ar dating a dishonest claim.

 

[outhouse]

You mean pack of lies

From some creationist? agreed, fanaticism is terrible by some of these people

 

[outhouse]

Read Post 2100 and see the truth....

It would not be from you.

Truth is in academia not you.

 

[outhouse]

You see here how you agreed on one thing and then you disagree from it on your another statement.

Only if you take the definition of divinity out of context that was used in their time. Not the modern perverted definition.

Just your knowledge, divinity was given to mortal men back then. The Emperor had it long before jesus did.

Tell me should I believe your next statement?

So I was correct, you DO NOT know the mans real name.

 

[Parsimony]

I think we are just going in circle here.

What circle? If you had answered my questions in a past post, I must have missed it. Please link me if you did.

Tell me the difference between xenocryst and phenocryst?

From what I understand, a phenocryst is just a particularly large crystal domain within a rock. A xenocryst is a rock that is a foreign inclusion within another rock (allowing a much older rock to be trapped inside of recently cooled lava, for example, thus throwing off age estimates if the sample as a whole is erroneously assumed to have formed all at one time.).

So was the sample you speak of homogeneous or not?

 

[Shad]

It was the K-Ar dating method and not Dr. Austin. Can you tell the difference between xenocryst and phenocryst?

Actually it was due to contamination in the lab since only 1 lab with one sample produced the error in the dating. Other labs dating was correct. Also one error does not invalid the method since there are a far greater number of accurate dating then incorrect dates. To used a flawed sample as an example is to ignore the key fact that it was flawed and that the lab was unable to date it.

CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite
The Creationist work at Mount St Helens | ReligiousForums.com
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

 

[Shad]

You have to remember that you were questioning my grammar when it was your grammar that should be in question, right? “You seems have had” 5th graders don’t talk like that anymore. There is no excuse for that and please do not blame the tiny keyboard in the cell phone.

Your comment merely fallacy I pointed out for you. You point has no merit and is irrelevant. Try to not use fallacious reasoning next time. I can be more careful in typing, I can proof read before posting.

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

 

[Shad]

In creation theory the mechanism of origins is choosing. That means whatever you can see in the universe is chosen, and since with choices there are always alternatives, what exists presently could alternatively also not have been chosen to be.

There is no error in creationism, the history of social darwinism shows there is a fundamental error in natural selection theory confusing ought with is, confusing opinion with fact.

Which irrelevant since I was talking about your "fact" basis not your opinion basis. Non-sequitur.

 

[Shad]

They don’t have a system back then to keep any DNA and even if someone is claiming today that s/he has the same blood as the Lord Jesus, how are you are going to compare their blood if there was no blood samples from the Lord Jesus to compare it with? Common sense is saying, you can’t, right? Does it refute anything as far as what the Gospel of Matthew was saying about the virgin birth? NO, It does not. You are looking for something that is obviously not there, i.e., the DNA of the Lord Jesus, and make this as a proof of your argument that there was no virgin birth at all because of the absence of the DNA.

Actually they did, it is called mummification in which blood samples can last for centuries.

In the end you have admitted you can not provide anything but hearsay evidence of a virgin birth which is the same amount provided for every other claim outside of your religion. You only accept the claim since it is /drum roll part of your religious ideology. Look up the word hearsay.

Common sense should tell us that there are no examples of pathogenesis on record, tested nor proven. Thus the Null Hypothesis is the common sense position until evidence is produced.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Which irrelevant since I was talking about your "fact" basis not your opinion basis. Non-sequitur.

Creation theory can describe the facts of how things are decided in the universe. There is no freedom in evolution theory, which means it is not suitable to describe origins of anything.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Creation theory can describe the facts of how things are decided in the universe. There is no freedom in evolution theory, which means it is not suitable to describe origins of anything.

Incorrect.
Creationism cannot "describe" anything about how things are decided.
All it can do is take a shot in the dark guess and call it a fact.

Of course there is no real freedom when providing evidence of evolutionary theory
If there was there would be guys just saying, "yeah, this is for sure the final missing link" and providing no dating or proof.
So we science lovers will leave the freedom of false evidence to you all.

Science tends to provide only logically sound or provable theories.
Therefore it is perfectly capable of describing origins.
Evolutionary theory has plenty of evidence and studies in it's favor, millions in fact.

What does your creationism have?
A book.
Maybe two.

Peace.

 

[gnostic]

Actually it was due to contamination in the lab since only 1 lab with one sample produced the error in the dating. Other labs dating was correct. Also one error does not invalid the method since there are a far greater number of accurate dating then incorrect dates. To used a flawed sample as an example is to ignore the key fact that it was flawed and that the lab was unable to date it.

He (jm2c) doesn't understand that scientists always test more than sample, so that ensure that error in testing doesn't corrupt the majority of testing so that have no error.

In science, scientific method is one of processes, in which the predictions made in hypothesis or theory can be tested "repeatedly", to minimise errors or anomalies. And not just samples that need testings; equipment or tools, used in testing or experiment, should also be tested and properly calibrated so that to minimise error on testing devices or tools.

Second, the hypothesis or theory should be clear and instructive, that more repeated testings can be done by other independent scientists or labs, hence peers, that will see if the testing meet the prediction

If there is only one result for the testing of hypothesis are off the mark from 20 other results, then the error or anomaly must come from that one measurement or result.

But those 20 more precise results doesn't mean the hypothesis is "valid" hypothesis, especially if the results doesn't meet with prediction(s) made in the hypothesis; what this mean is the hypothesis has been refuted, debunked or invalid. The hypothesis is ONLY VALID hypothesis if the 20 results meet the criteria of the prediction.

The problem with jm2c and other creationists, here and elsewhere, they narrow-minded think that one or two anomalies (or hoaxes) can pull down the whole theory of evolution. It doesn't work that way because there are millions of other evidences and tests that verify and validate that evolution predictions are true.

That's why creationism and intelligent design are nothing more than pseudoscience, because they (God or designer) untestable. Science don't work on logic alone; it requires it's explanation and prediction to observable through verifiable evidences, or through repeated tests or experiments. The logic has to meet with reality, and it is only through these evidences that we have gain knowledge through objectivity.

Take M-theory from superstring theory, as example. According to this, there are 11 dimensions, therefore there could be multiple dimensional realities. This is only provable through mathematical equations, mathematical and logical models, BUT it is not testable, and M-theory is not supported by evidences. This is why M-theory fall under "theoretical physics", and not under experimental physics, because it is provable in logic and mathematics, but not in verifiable observations (not testable or lack evidences).

Intelligent Design (as well as creationism) is neither "experimental", nor "theoretical", because it is neither testable (eg evidence), nor "provable" (eg capable of being proven through maths and logic), because ID rely on irrational superstition (the existence of Designer).

The use of Pitdown Man hoax just show that creationists can't see the big picture, because they ignore all other evidences that are not hoaxes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Incorrect.
Creationism cannot "describe" anything about how things are decided.
All it can do is take a shot in the dark guess and call it a fact.

Of course there is no real freedom when providing evidence of evolutionary theory
If there was there would be guys just saying, "yeah, this is for sure the final missing link" and providing no dating or proof.
So we science lovers will leave the freedom of false evidence to you all.

Science tends to provide only logically sound or provable theories.
Therefore it is perfectly capable of describing origins.
Evolutionary theory has plenty of evidence and studies in it's favor, millions in fact.

What does your creationism have?
A book.
Maybe two.

Millions of papers do not impress in regards to the fact I can directly verify myself that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. It means only theories focusing on choosing as the mechanism of creation are contenders to explain origins.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Millions of papers do not impress in regards to the fact I can directly verify myself that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. It means only theories focusing on choosing as the mechanism of creation are contenders to explain origins.

What you just said literally makes no sense to me in any way.
Please write that in terms I can understand.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He (jm2c) doesn't understand that scientists always test more than sample, so that ensure that error in testing doesn't corrupt the majority of testing so that have no error.

In science, scientific method is one of processes, in which the predictions made in hypothesis or theory can be tested "repeatedly", to minimise errors or anomalies. And not just samples that need testings; equipment or tools, used in testing or experiment, should also be tested and properly calibrated so that to minimise error on testing devices or tools.

Second, the hypothesis or theory should be clear and instructive, that more repeated testings can be done by other independent scientists or labs, hence peers, that will see if the testing meet the prediction

If there is only one result for the testing of hypothesis are off the mark from 20 other results, then the error or anomaly must come from that one measurement or result.

But those 20 more precise results doesn't mean the hypothesis is "valid" hypothesis, especially if the results doesn't meet with prediction(s) made in the hypothesis; what this mean is the hypothesis has been refuted, debunked or invalid. The hypothesis is ONLY VALID hypothesis if the 20 results meet the criteria of the prediction.

The problem with jm2c and other creationists, here and elsewhere, they narrow-minded think that one or two anomalies (or hoaxes) can pull down the whole theory of evolution. It doesn't work that way because there are millions of other evidences and tests that verify and validate that evolution predictions are true.

That's why creationism and intelligent design are nothing more than pseudoscience, because they (God or designer) untestable. Science don't work on logic alone; it requires it's explanation and prediction to observable through verifiable evidences, or through repeated tests or experiments. The logic has to meet with reality, and it is only through these evidences that we have gain knowledge through objectivity.

Take M-theory from superstring theory, as example. According to this, there are 11 dimensions, therefore there could be multiple dimensional realities. This is only provable through mathematical equations, mathematical and logical models, BUT it is not testable, and M-theory is not supported by evidences. This is why M-theory fall under "theoretical physics", and not under experimental physics, because it is provable in logic and mathematics, but not in verifiable observations (not testable or lack evidences).

Intelligent Design (as well as creationism) is neither "experimental", nor "theoretical", because it is neither testable (eg evidence), nor "provable" (eg capable of being proven through maths and logic), because ID rely on irrational superstition (the existence of Designer).

The use of Pitdown Man hoax just show that creationists can't see the big picture, because they ignore all other evidences that are not hoaxes.

Is just social darwinist pseudoscience folklore.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What you just said literally makes no sense to me in any way.
Please write that in terms I can understand.

Something wrong with you, noting wrong with what I said. You have a wrong concept of how choosing works. You define choosing in terms of sorting out the best result, all evolutionists do. But that is just egotripping, by definition you did the best anytime you make a decision, if you define choosing as sorting out the best result. You are wrong, and there is no reasoning possible with you as long as you rely on egotripping.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Something wrong with you, noting wrong with what I said. You have a wrong concept of how choosing works. You define choosing in terms of sorting out the best result, all evolutionists do. But that is just egotripping, by definition you did the best anytime you make a decision, if you define choosing as sorting out the best result. You are wrong, and there is no reasoning possible with you as long as you rely on egotripping.

Well if I had to choose between my girlfriend being raped or going to the park, I'd probably choose to go to the park.

You have it wrong, we don't just go for the best results.
We go for what benefits as a whole, there's nothing about us that is so uptight as to only accept the best.

I did the best anytime I made a decision?
Damn, so telling fundamentalist parents that you think they're beliefs are garbage, knowing how they'd react, was a good choice?
Glad to know.

There isn't anything wrong with what you said, I just can't read it correctly because of how it is worded.
You're using it as a hit to me that you can't word a freaking sentence properly.
You also used it to dig into evolutionists, and not even validate any claim made.

Also, the "best results" thing only belongs in the lab.
Who the hell would want to use faulty information?

You have a misconception.
Correct it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well if I had to choose between my girlfriend being raped or going to the park, I'd probably choose to go to the park.

You have it wrong, we don't just go for the best results.
We go for what benefits as a whole, there's nothing about us that is so uptight as to only accept the best.

I did the best anytime I made a decision?
Damn, so telling fundamentalist parents that you think they're beliefs are garbage, knowing how they'd react, was a good choice?
Glad to know.

There isn't anything wrong with what you said, I just can't read it correctly because of how it is worded.
You're using it as a hit to me that you can't word a freaking sentence properly.
You also used it to dig into evolutionists, and not even validate any claim made.

Also, the "best results" thing only belongs in the lab.
Who the hell would want to use faulty information?

You have a misconception.
Correct it.

I know you define choosing that way because you refer to God as superstition. You have 0 knowledge of any decisions made in the entire universe, because you conceive of choosing to mean sorting out the best result. That is why you don't understand about choosing, neither of people, nor in the universe.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I know you define choosing that way because you refer to God as superstition. You have 0 knowledge of any decisions made in the entire universe, because you conceive of choosing to mean sorting out the best result. That is why you don't understand about choosing, neither of people, nor in the universe.

And you do?
Oh, please Great One, explain to me the ways of the universe.

But when you do please provide proper evidence or you'll just be another lunatic fanatic in my eyes ^-^