Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Now you're just not making any sense, and you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual domain or provide any reason why things being a result of material processes makes them "fact", or what you even mean by "fact" in this context.

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.

Wrong. It's an opinion. Why would it be a fact?

I have already presented large amounts of solidl reasoned arguments.

You haven't presented a single coherent sentence, let alone a "solid, reasoned argument".

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.

In other words: because I don't make stuff up and randomly change the definitions of words to suit my persona, warped view of reality, my opinion is "incoherent" and "waffling". Here's an idea: before inventing your own definitions, learn the original definitions first. That way, we might have a productive conversation.

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

Putting nonsense into a list form doesn't make it not nonsense. Your argument still lacks any kind of logic, reason, evidence or substantiation of any kind. You've already lost this debate - stop making the same refuted arguments.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual domain or

It's the point of the spiritual domain that objectivity does not apply to it. That it cannot be proven. This is how it validates subjectivity. If you could prove the spiritual domain then it would be a matter of fact issue. duh.................... You could not be any more obtuse about how subjectivity works.

I see that all evolutionists blatantly reject subjectivity, and the history of social darwinism resulting in the holocaust also proves that this is a huge problem within the scientific community. After the holocaust, and even before, there was some emphasis that what is good and evil falls outside of science, but of course to apply that rule in practice requires to treat agency of decisions as a subjective issue. The goodness or evil of a man is in who he is as being the owner of their decisions. If that is not regarded as a subjective issue, then one cannot apply the rule that good and evil fall outside of science.

So on the one hand most evolutionists affirm that good and evil are outside of science, but on the other hand when push comes to shove most all evolutionists require evidence for agency of decisions, and blatantly reject subjectivity as a valid way of reaching a conclusion about it. Evolutionists are bad people because of their attachment to evolution theory.

 

[leibowde84]

Since God used the same raw materials in all of his earthly creation, why wonder that we see a similarity in genetic make up and even traits in animals that are very like our own? We all have the same Creator. We ARE like them in many ways.....the only thing that makes us different is our intellect and spiritual capacity. Being "made in God's image and likeness", humans alone possess abilities that animals do not. Morality for example is a uniquely human trait...as is the complex spoken and written language we take for granted. Humans alone have a concept of past, present and future...we can plan a future event based solely on our ability to predict the outcome of any situation and weigh up the options before acting.

We are creators like God......we make make works of art....compose music....poetry....theatre....all unique to us because it isn't programmed like instinct is in animals. We operate by free will. Animals are not endowed with any of those traits.

So the human 'animal' is unique among all creation. God was not inspired by gorillas but simply adding variety to his creation by making some posses similar traits to ourselves. Who isn't fascinated by monkeys? Who doesn't love the loyalty and affection of their dog? Who isn't inspired by the intellect of dolphins and their ability to mimic humans? Elephants demonstrate family attachments and mothers in nature take tender care of their young.

But when do we see animals appreciating anything intellectually? When was the last time you saw a cow admiring a sunset...or a wild animal consulting a recipe book for tonight's dinner?

Why does belief in a Creator depend on the stupid stance of creationists who dig their heels in and demand that the creative days were 24 hrs long? The Bible allows for the earth itself to be very ancient....million, even billions of years in fact. Living things appeared over vast ages of time, but not in the gradual sequence implied by evolution. The creative "days" may well have been epochs of time. Genesis says they had a beginning and an end......but God is not bound by earth time.

Living creatures and the systems that support them were designed and created to work beautifully and in a very self sustaining manner. No systems that humans use that interact and interconnect, appear by chance. They are designed and manufactured by extremely intelligent humans who can be congratulated for their achievements. But when it comes to the systems that form the natural world.....even more astoundingly complex and self replicating, we have no one to congratulate but the blind forces of evolution. Sorry...that is a no brainer for me.

Aren't you just taking newly found evidence and trying to squeeze it into fit with your existing system of belief?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The evidence does not support a creator.

Evolution theory acknowledges sentient creates are capable of responses not dictated by instincts or evolutionary mechanics. It is how people taught apes sign language which has no basis within the ape itself but is a construct of the mind. Evolution is not about origins but changes over time. You conflate abiogenesis with evolution.

Keep on babbling about a subject you have never studied, it is amusing to say the least.

The evidence supports that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. And issues about a creator, just as issues about who you are as being the owner of your decisions, are subjective issues, evidence does not apply to it.

For example you as being the owner of your decisions are an explitive explitive explitive. That is perfectly valid logic, the logic of subjectivity. You are on a religous forum trying to undermind subjectivity, and that makes you an explitive explitive explitive. That you would deny me the right to the freedom of opinion makes you even more of an explitive explitive explitive. All evolutionists are explitives of this sort, and the sooner they are kicked out of school and university the better.

 

[JM2C]

Jesus divinity was a mortal thing, its why he died on a cross.

Why He died on the cross again?

You just lack the knowledge of how divinity is defined

But you did, didn’t you?
Remember you agreed on His divinity in this verse? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” –John 1:1

 

[JM2C]

Are you looking in a mirror?

Why you ask me? I don’t have a problem looking in the mirror. You can’t look in the mirror, can you? You know what’s wrong with you man?

You will embrace any doctrines, even if you don’t understand them, as long as it is against God you will embrace any doctrines and let them use you as their pawn just like John Scopes who knew nothing about evolution and let those evolutionists used him just to further their own purposes.

In the words of historian Kevin Tierney, "Scopes was being used. He was completely willing to be used. But essentially the case had been taken over by the big names."

They don’t care about you. This is how they exploit your thinking. They feed you with the basics and let you go on your own with no directions at all. This is exactly what happened to John Scopes. "I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can."

“oppose this law in any way I can.” That’s exactly what you’re doing here, anyway you can. After they’ve used him they tossed him aside nowhere to be found.

You know Steve Biko once said, “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”

This is the doctrine that you are embracing right now.

George William HunterwroteCivic Biology, the text at the center of the Scopes "monkey" trial.[1][2]InCivic Biology, Hunter advocated both eugenicsandsegregation. "The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."[3] –Wiki.

If you can sleep at night knowing this is what you represent then you’re not going to have problem looking at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you need more parameters on xenocryst and phenocryst, because when you argued that You should be able to point out that the argument presented from talkorigins.org website is the “XENOCRYST” and if you read Emergence’s this is what he was arguing.

Just like the two verses, remember? I thought you knew the argument there and that was reason why I asked you if you can explain those 2 verses. IOW, before you make a point to an argument it would be easier to answer back if you read the whole report first instead of conjecturing. It was not about “unable to date it”. It’s was about different dates on different minerals with excess argon or argon occlusion within the minerals.

Still no response as to whether the sample was homogeneous or not?

 

[metis]

The "Scope Monkey Trial" was a showcase "trial" for both sides, and the atmosphere was more along the line of a carnival than an actual trial. However, there's no doubt that Darrow did quite a job on Bryan.

Secondly, to blame "evolutionists" for both eugenics and segregation is rather silly, and if one plays that card then they should also buy into the racism and segregation, including slavery, that most churches had endorsed.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The "Scope Monkey Trial" was a showcase "trial" for both sides, and the atmosphere was more along the line of a carnival than an actual trial. However, there's no doubt that Darrow did quite a job on Bryan.

Secondly, to blame "evolutionists" for both eugenics and segregation is rather silly, and if one plays that card then they should also buy into the racism and segregation, including slavery, that most churches had endorsed.

Darrow was just another liberal lawyer who perverts the course of justice with all kinds of lawyertricks.

All guilt for anything whatsoever can be laid at the feet of those who destroy faith. And evolutionists destroy all subjectivity, advocate social darwinist ideology in which good and evil is regarded as fact. Muslims are not mistaken that evolution theory is the cause of that typically western coldhearted evil. Atheism is also closely tied to evolution theory.

 

[Kirran]

Darrow was just another liberal lawyer who perverts the course of justice with all kinds of lawyertricks.

All guilt for anything whatsoever can be laid at the feet of those who destroy faith. And evolutionists destroy all subjectivity, advocate social darwinist ideology in which good and evil is regarded as fact. Muslims are not mistaken that evolution theory is the cause of that typically western coldhearted evil. Atheism is also closely tied to evolution theory.

There are Muslims who accept evolution as true.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There are Muslims who accept evolution as true.

Nobody who rejects subjectivity believes in God, or anything else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why you ask me? I don’t have a problem looking in the mirror. You can’t look in the mirror, can you? You know what’s wrong with you man?

You will embrace any doctrines, even if you don’t understand them, as long as it is against God you will embrace any doctrines and let them use you as their pawn just like John Scopes who knew nothing about evolution and let those evolutionists used him just to further their own purposes.

In the words of historian Kevin Tierney, "Scopes was being used. He was completely willing to be used. But essentially the case had been taken over by the big names."

They don’t care about you. This is how they exploit your thinking. They feed you with the basics and let you go on your own with no directions at all. This is exactly what happened to John Scopes. "I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can."

“oppose this law in any way I can.” That’s exactly what you’re doing here, anyway you can. After they’ve used him they tossed him aside nowhere to be found.

You know Steve Biko once said, “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”

This is the doctrine that you are embracing right now.

George William HunterwroteCivic Biology, the text at the center of the Scopes "monkey" trial.[1][2]InCivic Biology, Hunter advocated both eugenicsandsegregation. "The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."[3] –Wiki.

If you can sleep at night knowing this is what you represent then you’re not going to have problem looking at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

I haven't seen a single person on this thread condoning eugenics and segregation.

Do you represent the people who burned witches and heretics at the stake??

 

[Shad]

The evidence supports that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. And issues about a creator, just as issues about who you are as being the owner of your decisions, are subjective issues, evidence does not apply to it.

The creation, which implies a creator, is not a fact.

For example you as being the owner of your decisions are an explitive explitive explitive. That is perfectly valid logic, the logic of subjectivity. You are on a religous forum trying to undermind subjectivity, and that makes you an explitive explitive explitive. That you would deny me the right to the freedom of opinion makes you even more of an explitive explitive explitive. All evolutionists are explitives of this sort, and the sooner they are kicked out of school and university the better.

Never denied you can have an opinion. Do not need to undermine subjectivity, you do that fine on your own with you thrashing and twisting peoples comments.

Keep whining about something I need said, enjoy your strawman.

 

[Shad]

It's the point of the spiritual domain that objectivity does not apply to it. That it cannot be proven. This is how it validates subjectivity. If you could prove the spiritual domain then it would be a matter of fact issue. duh.................... You could not be any more obtuse about how subjectivity works.

Validity is useless without soundness. You only use a part of logic when it suits your argument but ignore the part which requires soundness as if it does not matter. Your half logic is not impressive.

I see that all evolutionists blatantly reject subjectivity, and the history of social darwinism resulting in the holocaust also proves that this is a huge problem within the scientific community. After the holocaust, and even before, there was some emphasis that what is good and evil falls outside of science, but of course to apply that rule in practice requires to treat agency of decisions as a subjective issue. The goodness or evil of a man is in who he is as being the owner of their decisions. If that is not regarded as a subjective issue, then one cannot apply the rule that good and evil fall outside of science.

Hatred of Jews was around for centuries before evolution

So on the one hand most evolutionists affirm that good and evil are outside of science, but on the other hand when push comes to shove most all evolutionists require evidence for agency of decisions, and blatantly reject subjectivity as a valid way of reaching a conclusion about it. Evolutionists are bad people because of their attachment to evolution theory.

Nope, people accept subjectivity. The problem with subjectivity is that beyond the person in question no one is obligated to accept others views as true. You seem bothered by this since your own views are completely subjective but you desire the truth factor of your views which you can not supply. So instead of looking at your own views you blast those that disagree.

 

[outhouse]

You will embrace any doctrines, even if you don’t understand them

You have no examples, just rhetoric.

, as long as it is against God you will embrace any doctrines

I have nothing against mythology, unlike you, I have studied it and have a passion for a deeper understanding your literal interpretation will never show you.


Its a pity your mind is closed to what the educated world calls reality, and evolution is factual reality. It is higher education.

Mythology on the other hand is illegal in classes so we don't poison our children's minds in science classes..

 

[outhouse]

Remember you agreed on His divinity in this verse?

I already explained what I agreed to. Divinity is defined differently then you think. It was a human title applied to mortal men. The Emperor was divine and "son of god" before jesus ever was.

Not only that you have no clue of the mans real name.

Your simply reaching in desperation.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” –John 1:1

You cannot even agree what this translates too, so don't bring things up that are so openly subjective. I factually did not agree to your interpretation.

I did agree with how you handled the reply towards and in context to the other poster, it does not mean I agreed 100% with your theology or interpretation.

 

[gnostic]

All guilt for anything whatsoever can be laid at the feet of those who destroy faith. And evolutionists destroy all subjectivity, advocate social darwinist ideology in which good and evil is regarded as fact. Muslims are not mistaken that evolution theory is the cause of that typically western coldhearted evil. Atheism is also closely tied to evolution theory.

What a load of crap...

Atheism ONLY has to do with the question of theism, therefore it is only related to religion.

Atheism has nothing to do with science or politics. For ignorant person, such as you playing the atheist-evolutionist card or atheist-communist-nazi card, just show how little you know about atheism, science and politics.

And the whole Social Darwinism is more about politics and sociology than about evolution or biology.

If anything, Islam and Muslims have more to do with Social Darwinism than evolutionary biology. One of the traits of Social Darwinism is the superior complex, by misusing Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and applying to social/biological convention or context.

Just look at the whole Islamic history, and you will see that Islam and their worshippers have the worse form of superior complex:

• It is always about Islam being better than other religions.
• Muslims think they are chosen ones, and therefore better than everyone else (non-Muslims).
• Muslims always elevated Muhammad, to be superior to all other prophets before him being, as I quote from Muslims' often repeated mantra - Muhammad is the Last Messenger" or the "Last Prophet". Hell, some Muslims wanted to punish a schoolteacher for blasphemy for a kid naming a stuffed teddy bear "Muhammad", an example of Muslims treating Muhammad like a "god".
• Muslims believed that the Qur'an is the only un-corrupted scripture.
• The Islamic empires supposedly better than other empires.

All of the above are symptoms of Social Darwinism.

Look at the Muslim terrorist groups, like Hamas, Hezbollah, Talibans, al-Qaeda, IS. Each of them think they are the law to themselves, and think they are superior to all others - politically, socially and religiously, and they are all trying to imposed their brand of Islam upon everyone around them.

Look at Egypt, when the Copts are treated as second-citizens in their own country. Segregation and bigotry exist here. How often do they have their homes, shops and churches get burnt down. Social Darwinism can be applied to Egyptian Muslims.

If anyone think they are superior, it is the Muslims, who think they are better than everyone else, who think they owned lands all all around the world.

If you think social Darwinism can only be applied to scientists or atheists, think again, Mohammad Nur Syamsu, because it can be applied to Muslims a thousand times over.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What a load of crap...

Atheism ONLY has to do with the question of theism, therefore it is only related to religion.

Atheism has nothing to do with science or politics. For ignorant person, such as you playing the atheist-evolutionist card or atheist-communist-nazi card, just show how little you know about atheism, science and politics.

And the whole Social Darwinism is more about politics and sociology than about evolution or biology.

If anything, Islam and Muslims have more to do with Social Darwinism than evolutionary biology. One of the traits of Social Darwinism is the superior complex, by misusing Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and applying to social/biological convention or context.

Just look at the whole Islamic history, and you will see that Islam and their worshippers have the worse form of superior complex:

• It is always about Islam being better than other religions.
• Muslims think they are chosen ones, and therefore better than everyone else (non-Muslims).
• Muslims always elevated Muhammad, to be superior to all other prophets before him being, as I quote from Muslims' often repeated mantra - Muhammad is the Last Messenger" or the "Last Prophet". Hell, some Muslims wanted to punish a schoolteacher for blasphemy for a kid naming a stuffed teddy bear "Muhammad", an example of Muslims treating Muhammad like a "god".
• Muslims believed that the Qur'an is the only un-corrupted scripture.
• The Islamic empires supposedly better than other empires.

All of the above are symptoms of Social Darwinism.

Look at the Muslim terrorist groups, like Hamas, Hezbollah, Talibans, al-Qaeda, IS. Each of them think they are the law to themselves, and think they are superior to all others - politically, socially and religiously, and they are all trying to imposed their brand of Islam upon everyone around them.

Look at Egypt, when the Copts are treated as second-citizens in their own country. Segregation and bigotry exist here. How often do they have their homes, shops and churches get burnt down. Social Darwinism can be applied to Egyptian Muslims.

If anyone think they are superior, it is the Muslims, who think they are better than everyone else, who think they owned lands all all around the world.

If you think social Darwinism can only be applied to scientists or atheists, think again, Mohammad Nur Syamsu, because it can be applied to Muslims a thousand times over.

I can see you all reject subjectivity right on this forum, so it is case closed that evolution theory = social darwinism. And the holocaust was in 20 th century Europe.

 

[gnostic]

I can see you all reject subjectivity right on this forum, so it is case closed that evolution theory = social darwinism. And the holocaust was in 20 th century Europe.

Like I wrote in my last post, evolution is biology, not political or social issues.

Social Darwinism have nothing to do with biology.

That you can't grasp the differences, showed just how seriously lacking your basic education is.

 

[Kirran]

I can see you all reject subjectivity right on this forum, so it is case closed that evolution theory = social darwinism. And the holocaust was in 20 th century Europe.

Nobody here rejects subjectivity. You are incorrect.