Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

You are all just corrupt, which is shown by that you have zero knowledge of any decisions in billions of years of history of the universe that you project.

I have knowledge of decisions made throughout history. Why would you think otherwise, as I have made no such claim?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it does not. It operates on opinion.

Obviously the opinion is the result of the procedure of subjectivity.

You know absolutely nothing about subjectivity, you are just trying to stamp out the whole issue of subjectivity with waffling about, so then you can go on with regarding every issue in terms of objectivity. You never said what other objective aspect there is to an opinion besides the words. And you never will, it is just fantasizing, while you are writing your posting, and you have no ready to go understanding of subjectivity, nor do you accept the validity of it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I accept choosing and that definition as you stated. We are in agreement on this point. So when you use the word love in regards to how a choice is made, what do you mean specifically?

To make an opinion whether or not a decision is loving or not, then there are some rules about deciding in a unified way, with my heart, etc. etc. real subjectivity is of course complex.

 

[leibowde84]

To make an opinion whether or not a decision is loving or not, then there are some rules about deciding in a unified way, with my heart, etc. etc. real subjectivity is of course complex.

So what does love mean as being one of these options?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think I've never dealt with subjective love. I never made this claim.

You simply don't deal with it. You simply always skew the argument towards objectivity, and never deal with subjectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

You simply don't deal with it. You simply always skew the argument towards objectivity, and never deal with subjectivity.

My question was why you think I "simply don't deal with it". Surely you aren't foolish enough to assume you have a reasonable understanding of my life simply by reading a small portion of my comments on a religious debate forum, are you?

 

[leibowde84]

"Wrong" more applies to facts than to opinions. Your beliefs may be immoral, evil, misguided. Saying they might be wrong, implies you made an error in measurement, or whatever.

You consistently slant everything towards objectivity, you reject subjectivity.

And still you have never accepted the creationist procedure of choosing about what it is that chooses. You use different definitions than creationism for choosing, subjectivity, freedom, opinion and everything else. Evolutionists use the logic of sorting to mean choosing. So it is all quite meaningless that you say to accept subjectivity, believing and whatever, as long as you don't go into the actual details of the procedure. Because you might as well use a logic of being forced, cause and effect, with the word choosing like professional evolutionary biologists do.

Do you agree that love exists?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My question was why you think I "simply don't deal with it". Surely you aren't foolish enough to assume you have a reasonable understanding of my life simply by reading a small portion of my comments on a religious debate forum, are you?

You have demonstrably never dealt with subjectivity ever at all. You say yeah love is subjective, but it also has objective parts. Yes the existence of God is a matter of opinion, but possibly we will find evidence. The only thing you do is say to support subjectivity, but never actually address it, you systematically skew everything towards objectivity, and leave subjectivity an empty issue.

For subjectivity it is useful to have knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe, because you can then direct your attention to these decisions, and make opinion on the spirit in which it is decided. That is factual knowledge which accomodates subjectivity immensely. For subjectivity it is also very important how people decide things. Ways of deciding can be very different, yet in essence the decisions are still the same in that they can turn out one way or another. Politics, obviously democracy and dictatorship are very different ways of choosing what happens in a country. How things are decided matters very much.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So what does love mean as being one of these options?

The opinion means then that love made the decision turn out the way it does, that it creates the result.

 

[gnostic]

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 started because you kept twisting words around. You twisted my words about dinosaurs and about Job's behemoth, then you twist words about Luke-Matthew genealogy and about Quirinius, then twisted my own reply about me not looking at M

And BTW, if I called God stupid because of the God's superstitious CRAPs found in Job 38-40, or the author to Luke's census being idiot, it was never personal insults to you, but you did insulted me with racial remark directed at me. And yet, your posts indicated I was cursing you, when I didn't. Are you God?

 

[gnostic]

You simply don't deal with it. You simply always skew the argument towards objectivity, and never deal with subjectivity.

When you are talking about subjects like evolution, the Big Bang, or any other physical science or life science, then it is best to seek out objective sources, rather than opinions.

Opinions are only good for arts, psychology, morality, religion, sociology and politics; subjectivity is more suited in these fields or topics. Social Darwinism is a political and social topic, not biology. Creationism, as well as Intelligent Design, are both religious topics, not science, because they required belief and faith. Belief and faith have nothing to do with science, that's why there are no evidences to support god or the designer.

And Evolution, is not a social, political or religious subject, because as biology subject, evolution required verifiable evidences, not opinions from creationists, who (creationists) are already religiously and ignorantly biased toward their own respective religions.

Science work with empirical evidences or being repeatedly testable, and Evolution falls under that category. Tests, experiments or evidences are the only mean of finding truth, objectively.

But NO-ONE here who have argue against you, objected to subjectivity.

You are just dishonest, when you tried to change known definitions of many words that you have used.

 

[Shad]

You all reject subjectivity right on this forum.

Nope. I just do not hold subjectivity to a level you do since I know what it actually means. You believe in X, I do not believe in X. Both are subjective views since it is a personal opinion.

 

[Shad]

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

The ideas of race and selective breeding both predate evolution. Evolution only provided a stepping stone in the attempt at justification of it as a social policy in modern time. Race has no real biological meaning since it is based on the most external identification rather than internal. This is classical genetics which has no basis in science at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

When you are talking about subjects like evolution, the Big Bang, or any other physical science or life science, then it is best to seek out objective sources, rather than opinions.

Opinions are only good for arts, psychology, morality, religion, sociology and politics; subjectivity is more suited in these fields or topics. Social Darwinism is a political and social topic, not biology. Creationism, as well as Intelligent Design, are both religious topics, not science, because they required belief and faith. Belief and faith have nothing to do with science, that's why there are no evidences to support god or the designer.

And Evolution, is not a social, political or religious subject, because as biology subject, evolution required verifiable evidences, not opinions from creationists, who (creationists) are already religiously and ignorantly biased toward their own respective religions.

Science work with empirical evidences or being repeatedly testable, and Evolution falls under that category. Tests, experiments or evidences are the only mean of finding truth, objectively.

But NO-ONE here who have argue against you, objected to subjectivity.

You are just dishonest, when you tried to change known definitions of many words that you have used.

Most of that reads like some kind of bureacratic statement from the offices of public affairs for evolution theory.

Reality is evolutionists are swamped with social darwinism, which is because subjectivity is inherently a creationist concept, and evolutionists are set in opposition to creationism. And if you read the views of any evolutionist about the issue, you can see it is a very systematic rejection of any subjectivity.

Creationists are not dumb or mistaken in their long standing complaint that evolution theory is what undermines religion. Evolution theory undermines any subjectivity altogether including religion. And the history of social darwinism in relation to the holocaust shows how extreme this rejection of subjectivity by evolutionists can get.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. I just do not hold subjectivity to a level you do since I know what it actually means. You believe in X, I do not believe in X. Both are subjective views since it is a personal opinion.

You reject the procedure of choosing about what it is that choosing, resulting in an opinion. In stead you require to be forced by evidence to a conclusion, to answer a question about what the agency of a decision is.
You define making a decision in terms of sorting out the best result, where the knowledge of good and evil act as sortingcriteria forcing the result.
You have 0 knowledge of any decisions made in the entire history of the universe.

etc.

You reject subjectivity.

 

[JM2C]

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.

What is your interpretation of this Behemoth? What kind of animal this Behemoth is in today’s comparison?

 

[gnostic]

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.

The problem I had with jm2c's interpretation to the behemoth is that he had earlier (in his early posts) stated that it was a t-rex. The problem is that t-rex don't eat grass, and they were never herbivore dinosaurs. He made all sort of baseless claims, like how the t-rex were originally not meat eaters, making all sort of excuses.

 

[JM2C]

It started because you kept twisting words around. You twisted my words about dinosaurs and about Job's behemoth, then you twist words about Luke-Matthew genealogy and about Quirinius, then twisted my own reply about me not looking at M

When are you going to start UNDERSTADING that all I was doing was criticizing your arguments? You arguments are not final, meaning; it can be criticize and if you don’t want PEOPLE to criticize your arguments then don’t argue.

WE ARE NOT KIDS PLAYING IN THE YARD WHERE ONE STARTED TO CRY BECAUSE ONE CANNOT TAKE THE PRESSURE OF PLAYING WITH OTHER KIDS.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS?

And BTW, if I called God stupid because of the God's superstitious CRAPs found in Job 38-40, or the author to Luke's census being idiot, it was never personal insults to you, but you did insulted me with racial remark directed at me. And yet, your posts indicated I was cursing you, when I didn't. Are you God?

Do you think I don't have the original copy of this

You're an arrogant b#$@@@@, are you?!

Putting words in my mouth, but that's just you being you, dishonest bloody Christian, with the tendencies to draw conclusions that are not there. You do that with science, you do it toward your own religion, and now you doing that to my posts.

This is not cursing to you? What is ******* means to you?

*******: a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child. a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person: a person, especially a man: something irregular, inferior, spurious, or unusual.

 

[JM2C]

The problem I had with jm2c's interpretation to the behemoth is that he had earlier (in his early posts) stated that it was a t-rex. The problem is that t-rex don't eat grass, and they were never herbivore dinosaurs. He made all sort of baseless claims, like how the t-rex were originally not meat eaters, making all sort of excuses.

Show the post# where I stated that the Behemoth is the T-rex? The problem is, you cannot take no for an answer. You think your interpretation is not subject to a different interpretation and then you call it TWISTING YOUR WORDS. Always whining about TWISTING YOUR WORDS. Grow up man and stop whining..I'm not a baby sitter..

 

[Parsimony]

Show the post# where I stated that the Behemoth is the T-rex?

You did at least imply it when you said:

“The sinews of his thighs are knit together.” The T-rex’s femur or thigh is where they found the tissue or collagen/sinew. Do you think this is just a coincidence, or it’s God’s work?