Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

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

This is old news already and if you’re really interested in it just keep on clicking the arrows up till you see how it all started.

 

[jonathan180iq]

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes. We agree love exists.

Which means you do not believe love exists, instead you know it for a fact. It means you ignore subjectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

I can safely say, you both reject subjectivity in general. I explained how subjectivity works, that it means to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion, you reject it, hence you reject subjectivity. This conceptual scheme obviously requires that the existence of love be regarded as a matter of opinion, that love is motivation of a decision, and that therefore one can only reach the conclusion it is there or not by choosing the conclusion.

So when you both agree that the existence of love is not a matter of opinion, that pretty much settles it, you reject subjectivity in general.

And then you come up with all sorts of vacuous nonsense.....

You are just having a problem with reading comprehension. We did not disagree with anything you just stated. We aren't talking about the concept of love when discussed as a linguistic term.

 

[jonathan180iq]

SUBJECTIVTIY: "that it means to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion."

This makes absolutely no sense...

You're saying that people reject the idea to choose what it is that chooses?

What the hell does that even mean?
Are you implying that what it is that chooses is god, and thus subjectivity is god? That's the only way that I can read this and make any sense of it at all.

This conceptual scheme obviously requires that the existence of love be regarded as a matter of opinion, that love is motivation of a decision, and that therefore one can only reach the conclusion it is there or not by choosing the conclusion.

If this is how you define it then I have no problem rejecting it. It's mishmash.

 

[leibowde84]

Which means you do not believe love exists, instead you know it for a fact. It means you ignore subjectivity.

Nope, just that it exists as a linguistic concept.

 

[leibowde84]

This is old news already and if you’re really interested in it just keep on clicking the arrows up till you see how it all started.

It seems like you were incorrectly using the word "bend", erroneously under the impression that it meant "length" or "height". Then, you accused them of using profanity, using a racial slur in the process (which, btw, is far worse than profanity of any kind). Did I miss something?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are just having a problem with reading comprehension. We did not disagree with anything you just stated. We aren't talking about the concept of love when discussed as a linguistic term.

Except of course, when I said if he was referring to the word love in saying it was objective, then he explicitly denied it.

The truth is you both don't know what you are saying. You are making it up while you are writing, and forgetting it again the next instant.

 

[Kirran]

Except of course, when I said if he was referring to the word love in saying it was objective, then he explicitly denied it.

I did not do that.

Again: has anybody ever agreed with you on this?

 

[JM2C]

It seems like you were incorrectly using the word "bend", erroneously under the impression that it meant "length" or "height". Then, you accused them of using profanity, using a racial slur in the process (which, btw, is far worse than profanity of any kind). Did I miss something?

Post #1904 but it was edited already so you’re not going to see the actual words that was written there. IOW, forget about it, we’re done with it already.

What is the right interpretation of bends/moveth/sways like a cedar?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I did not do that.

Again: has anybody ever agreed with you on this?

post 2211 you said "I wasn't just saying the word 'like' exists."


You're intellectually dishonest. You got nothing, no arguments, so you resort to other means like confusion, asserting authority and whatever.

 

[Kirran]

post 2211 you said "I wasn't just saying the word 'like' exists."


You're intellectually dishonest. You got nothing, no arguments, so you resort to other means like confusion, asserting authority and whatever.

In English, the word 'just' means 'only', in this case. I was not only saying that the word 'like' exists, I was also making other points beyond it, while not in any way denying the existence of the word 'like'.

 

[leibowde84]

Post #1904 but it was edited already so you’re not going to see the actual words that was written there. IOW, forget about it, we’re done with it already.

What is the right interpretation of bends/moveth/sways like a cedar?

It is referring to the malleability of an object. With a cedar, it would be it's ability to "bend, sway, or move" as a result of the wind blowing it.

 

[JM2C]

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

The state ofCaliforniawas at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until the 1960s.[36]

While California had the highest number of sterilizations,North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs. -Wiki

The eugenics program ended in 1977 but the by-product of this program still exists today on both sides, i.e., those who were negatively affected by it, i.e., sterilizations, and those who were not affected by sterilizations. Can you see the connection between this and George William Hunter’s Civic Biology, the text at the center of the Scopes "monkey" trial, and Galton’s theory about eugenics?

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

You mean the rcc? No! not one of them!

 

[McBell]

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.

Interesting just how well you demonstrate the above.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What is the right interpretation of bends/moveth/sways like a cedar?

The point is moot, regardless.

Sauropods don't have tails like cedars, they have tails like whips.

They also cannot fit under a shade tree, cool off in the reeds, sink down in the creek, or drink up the Jordan river with their mouth...


Job 40:15-24 King James Version
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The animal written about in Job is an embellished, poetic description of a Hippopotamus or Rhinoceros, depending on how you read that last line about his nose piercing snares...
They kill people today in every culture that deals with them and they both have been known to scare all people who live near where they are located throughout history. Given that the Hippo would be more of an issue for people who live near water, and until just recently all major human settlements were near flowing bodies of water, it's quite obviously a hippo. The fact either of them would show up in Mesopotamian mythology is not surprising.

So let's just move on from this attempt to relate Behemoth to a dinosaur. Creationists with any experience or credibility have already let this one go.

 

[JM2C]

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.

It was initiated by ACLU to challenge the Butler Act but they lost and the law remained on the books until 1967..

“Scopes's involvement in the so-calledScopes Monkey Trialcame about after theAmerican Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) announced that it would finance a test case challenging theconstitutionalityof the Butler Act if they could find a Tennessee teacher willing to act as a defendant. A band of businessmen in Dayton, Tennessee, led by engineer and geologistGeorge Rappleyea, saw this as an opportunity to get publicity for their town and approached Scopes. –Wiki

However, there's no doubt that Darrow did quite a job on Bryan.

No such thing. Show me the court transcript...

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.

Read Galton’s theory and George William Hunter’s Civic Biology

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In English, the word 'just' means 'only', in this case. I was not only saying that the word 'like' exists, I was also making other points beyond it, while not in any way denying the existence of the word 'like'.

Well that's correct, but then Leibowde paraphrased it that your argument was only linguistic, which is not true. There is something else objective, you assert, except we don't know what it is, because you haven't fantasized that part of your argument yet.

 

[leibowde84]

Well that's correct, but then Leibowde paraphrased it that your argument was only linguistic, which is not true. There is something else objective, you assert, except we don't know what it is, because you haven't fantasized that part of your argument yet.

Love is a linguistic term that refers to a subjective feeling. If love was not an objective reality, at least to some extent, we would not be able to discuss it. Imho, though, love is far too vague to be proven part of objective reality, but the concept certainly does.

 

[leibowde84]

Well that's correct, but then Leibowde paraphrased it that your argument was only linguistic, which is not true. There is something else objective, you assert, except we don't know what it is, because you haven't fantasized that part of your argument yet.

At least I didn't jump to the conclusion that we all reject subjectivity in its entirety. Right?