Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

I have chosen this image to represent sentiments expressed in this thread - If you doubt my selection of this gif then you obviously don't know how choosing works.
This gif is an objective fact, because it was selectively chosen by me in common discourse.

This made me laugh so much harder than it should have

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I tell myself this. Then come back. We'd need a concerted effort.

Maybe we could start a new section of the forum for weekly meetings to help each other with our crippling addiction to responding to Muhammad's posts. We can call it "Pointlessly Going Around in Circles Anonymous".

Also, free coffee?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are absolutely intolerable.
Let me make this clear so that your thick skull can process this.

A official definition for a word is the official meaning of that word.
You do not have the right to argue with that meaning.
I don't see what you don't get here.

Every post I read of yours seems to only make me stupider.
-.-

From your reference:
"Full Definition of FACT
1: a thing done:"

As I said, dictionary definitions are vague and useless.

But absolutely the definition of fact must be in line with common discourse. Don't make stuff up, but accurately reflect the logical structure that people use when they talk in terms of facts. And that logical structure is that facts are in essence models of things. The fact of a thing, is a 1 to 1 model of that thing. The facts about the moon are a 1 to 1 model of the moon.

And anger, love and hate, etc. are not matter of fact issues, they cannot be copied, made a model of. In stead one can express their emotions, with free will, thus choosing, creating millions of different expressions which are all equally logically valid.

So we can see with facts there is only 1 valid conclusion, the accurate 1 to 1 model, and with opinions there are infinite valid conclusions, provided the conclusion is chosen.

 

[Kirran]

And anger, love and hate, etc. are not matter of fact issues, they cannot be copied, made a model of. In stead one can express their emotions, with free will, thus choosing, creating millions of different expressions which are all equally logically valid.

So we can see with facts there is only 1 valid conclusion, the accurate 1 to 1 model, and with opinions there are infinite valid conclusions, provided the conclusion is chosen.

Yes. All correct.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If somebody likes icecream, they in fact do like icecream. It is true that they have a preference for icecream. Therefore it's a statement of fact. In the same me saying, I am writing on a keyboard, is a statement of objective fact.

Like and dislike would be opinion, to like writing on your keyboard, is opinion.

And you cannot build up opinion from fact, as it were. Meaning it has to be fundamentally a matter of opinion, meaning that the very existence of the love in "liking" must be a matter of opinion. If the existence of the love is a fact, then saying you like icecream describes the fact that there exists love for icecream in your brain, which is an error of contradiction, equating opinion with fact.

You all got absolutely nothing. You are here on religious forums trying to undermine subjectivity in general. That is so evil.

 

[leibowde84]

Evolution is NOT testable. Adaptation is testable....they are NOT the same.



Been told by whom? People who have swallowed the evolution fraud hook, line and sinker? Who lies? Those who claim that organic evolution is an established fact. It never has been and never will be.

You have no doubt been "told" that God created all life on earth just the way it states in Genesis by those who believe in the Bible...does it cut any mustard with you? The claims of scientists cut no mustard with me.



Adaptation can be observed right now...adaptation is NOT the same as organic evolution by a long shot. That is the point of the denial. There is no proof.....you know there's no proof or it would have been produced by now. Everything offered so far is based on supposition, not fact.



In other people's definition of ID?.....I don't really care. I subscribe to what the Bible teaches, not what men teach.
The complex and intricate biological systems that operate in every part of the earth and in all living things is not the product of blind chance mutations. An intelligent designer is responsible for all the life forms we observe, including the microscopic ones.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.

CORRECTION:
This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild.

MISCONCEPTION: The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it.

CORRECTION: Scientists have studied the supposed "flaws" that anti-evolution groups claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These "flaws" are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of the evidence. As scientists gather new evidence and as new perspectives emerge, evolutionary theory continues to be refined, but that doesn't mean that the theory is flawed. Science is a competitive endeavor, and scientists would be eager to study and correct "flaws" in evolutionary theory if they existed.
(Misconceptions about evolution

 

[gnostic]

Guys, I strongly recommend putting Muhammad Nur Syamsu on ignore.

I have already got him on ignore.

He is still doing exactly the same he did in the other threads. No one is really talking about subjectivity, but he seemed to argue with everyone are against "subjectivity".

He also bring up the subject of freedom a lot, and think everyone but him is against freedom.

He believe everyone but him are either evil atheists or social Darwinists, but not himself or any Muslims. If you put any opinions that disagree with him, you are one of the following: atheist, communist, nazi, social Darwinist, and then accuse anyone and everyone that they are against freedom, opinion, and subjectivity.

He frequently change definitions and use those warped definitions, as if he is correct. He is sound like a broken record.

He has changed one bit, since before I put him on ignore list.

 

[Kirran]

Like and dislike would be opinion, to like writing on your keyboard, is opinion.

And you cannot build up opinion from fact, as it were. Meaning it has to be fundamentally a matter of opinion, meaning that the very existence of the love in "liking" must be a matter of opinion. If the existence of the love is a fact, then saying you like icecream describes the fact that there exists love for icecream in your brain, which is an error of contradiction, equating opinion with fact.

You all got absolutely nothing. You are here on religious forums trying to undermine subjectivity in general. That is so evil.

I absolutely accept subjectivity.

Yes, liking icecream is an opinion. But the fact that somebody holds an opinion is a fact. You think I am evil. This is the case. But 'I am evil' is your opinion, because it's not necessarily true or not, we can't prove it either way, because it is OPINION. But 'Mohammad thinks Kirran is evil' is a fact, because it is the case, it is true.

 

[Deathbydefault]

From your reference:
"Full Definition of FACT
1: a thing done:"

As I said, dictionary definitions are vague and useless.

But absolutely the definition of fact must be in line with common discourse. Don't make stuff up, but accurately reflect the logical structure that people use when they talk in terms of facts. And that logical structure is that facts are in essence models of things. The fact of a thing, is a 1 to 1 model of that thing. The facts about the moon are a 1 to 1 model of the moon.

And anger, love and hate, etc. are not matter of fact issues, they cannot be copied, made a model of. In stead one can express their emotions, with free will, thus choosing, creating millions of different expressions which are all equally logically valid.

So we can see with facts there is only 1 valid conclusion, the accurate 1 to 1 model, and with opinions there are infinite valid conclusions, provided the conclusion is chosen.

lol I'm so tired of you.
You aren't really even worth the effort anymore.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I absolutely accept subjectivity.

Yes, liking icecream is an opinion. But the fact that somebody holds an opinion is a fact. You think I am evil. This is the case. But 'I am evil' is your opinion, because it's not necessarily true or not, we can't prove it either way, because it is OPINION. But 'Mohammad thinks Kirran is evil' is a fact, because it is the case, it is true.

That is a very confused way of saying that the word "like" does in fact exist.

Yes obviously the word does exist when written, which proves that the result of choices, the creation, is a matter of fact issue, just like creationism says it is.

But the love that the word "like" refers to, the existence of that love is a matter of opinion, because it is in reference to what chooses, the motivation of a decision, therefore it belongs to the creator category.

 

[Kirran]

That is a very confused way of saying that the word "like" does in fact exist.

Yes obviously the word does exist when written, which proves that the result of choices, the creation, is a matter of fact issue, just like creationism says it is.

But the love that the word "like" refers to, the existence of that love is a matter of opinion, because it is in reference to what chooses, the motivation of a decision, therefore it belongs to the creator category.

No, the existence of love is not a matter of opinion. We know love exists, because we feel it. What that love is we don't know yet know, and so it is opinion.

I wasn't just saying the word 'like' exists. I was making more of a point than that.

It is objective to say 'Mohammed thinks I am evil', because you do.

It is subjective to say 'I am evil' because to say whether somebody is evil is an opinion. Do you see what I am saying?

 

[Shad]

Maybe we could start a new section of the forum for weekly meetings to help each other with our crippling addiction to responding to Muhammad's posts. We can call it "Pointlessly Going Around in Circles Anonymous".

Also, free coffee?

What kind of coffee?

 

[Shad]

You seriously need to brush on WW2 history, Mohammad.

Nazi Germany was never atheistic state.

By linking atheism to the Nazi just showed how desperate, ignorant and dishonest you.

Before I had put you in the ignore list, I told you clearly that I have never supported the nazi or the communist, but you kept accusing me of being one. You kept twisting my words around or ignore them. You are not being s#@@#@, but you are an immoral liar.

You also keep trying to trying to change definitions to words, and applying them incorrectly to thing have no relation to those words. You don't even know what subjectivity mean, because clearly you are misapplying to people who don't reject subjectivity.

Look at your own religion and to Muslims, because if anyone is Social Darwinist, it is the Muslims, but you are just too blind to see it.

Just use his logic. IS is comprised of Muslims and follow Islamic laws(ish). Mo is a Muslim thus supports IS thus Mo is a terrorist.

Logic is hard.

 

[outhouse]

Do you see what I am saying?

The ignore function is the best way to keep ones sanity while debating here. This one will not see what you are saying no matter how plainly you point out 1 + 1 = 2

 

[Kirran]

The ignore function is the best way to keep ones sanity while debating here. This one will not see what you are saying no matter how plainly you point out 1 + 1 = 2

Ah it's cool. Sanity is overrated.

 

[leibowde84]

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 isNO china man you made a mistake when you said this “genealogical history are unreliable” and therefore blame it on me, like GENIUS, because it embarrassed you.

Why are you calling him "China man"? You do realize that is a racist slur, right? Are you prejudiced against Asian people?

 

[Shad]

Why are you calling him "China man"? You do realize that is a racist slur, right? Are you prejudiced against Asian people?

He took comments about his inability to understand that bend does not mean height or length as curse words, ie a lack of comprehension. In return he started using the slur as if it covers for his inability and is an equal retort. He was warned already for it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, the existence of love is not a matter of opinion.

That's rejection of subjectivity in general.

I wasn't just saying the word 'like' exists. I was making more of a point than that.

It is objective to say 'Mohammed thinks I am evil', because you do.

It is subjective to say 'I am evil' because to say whether somebody is evil is an opinion. Do you see what I am saying?

Since you denied you were referring to the fact that the word "evil" objectively exists, no I do not see what you're saying.

By all means fantasize some more about how subjectivity works while you write your postings, but you have no chance of immediately coming up with a robust conceptual scheme by fantasizing in such a way. Meanwhile creationism works already for thousands of years without fail.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just use his logic. IS is comprised of Muslims and follow Islamic laws(ish). Mo is a Muslim thus supports IS thus Mo is a terrorist.

Logic is hard.

You all reject subjectivity right on this forum.

 

[Kirran]

That's rejection of subjectivity in general.

So one must reject the existence of love to accept subjectivity? I disagree.

Since you denied you were referring to the fact that the word "evil" exists objectively exists, no I do not see what you're saying.

By all means fantasize some more about how subjectivity works while you write your postings, but you have no chance of immediately coming up with a robust conceptual scheme by fantasizing in such a way. Meanwhile creationism works already for thousands of years without fail.

I have not denied that the word 'evil' exists. I am saying that to say something or someone is evil is a subjective claim.

Creationism has worked, in the same way the theory of the flat Earth has worked.