Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

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

I'm not sure what "behemoth" you are referring to. Can you clarify?

 

[leibowde84]

Atheistic China. Eugenics has now become much of the replacement ideology for the largely defunct communism. So we have the prospect of hundreds of millions of evolutionist Chinese marauding through the world in a battle for survival.

Can you provide a citation for this?

 

[Skwim]

Strongs H930 in the following manner: "behemoth"

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. perhaps an extinct dinosaur

A. a Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus, exact meaning unknown​

Strong’s Definitions

bᵉhêmôwth, be-hay-mohth'; in form a plural or H929, but really a singular of Egyptian derivation; a water-ox, i.e. the hippopotamus or Nile-horse:—Behemoth.​

H929
Outline of Biblical Usage

1. beast, cattle, animal

A. beasts (coll of all animals)

B. cattle, livestock (of domestic animals)

C. wild beasts​

Strong’s Definitions

bᵉhêmâh, be-hay-maw'; from an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); properly, a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collective):—beast, cattle.​

 

[leibowde84]

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

OMG, you did not provide the meaning of the word "love", and you literally used the word in the definition you attempted to provide. Can you tell me what you mean by love in this context (without using "love" in the definition, as that doesn't really get us anywhere)? Or are you trying to say that "love" is a term of art?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I agree that the way that things are decided matter very much. The problem (and reason why I tend to stay out of debates on subjective matters such as this) are that they are tough to discuss in a meaningful, understandable way. It is not that I don't grant them credence, because I do cherish them very much as monumentally important, but I find it more constructive to discuss topics that can actually be reasonably argued.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

OMG, you did not provide the meaning of the word "love", and you literally used the word in the definition you attempted to provide. Can you tell me what you mean by love in this context (without using "love" in the definition, as that doesn't really get us anywhere)? Or are you trying to say that "love" is a term of art?

So you don't reject subjectivity, but you require a definition of what love in fact is.

I already explained all of it. The objective definition of love is that it makes a decision turn out the way it does. Hate as exactly the same definition, the soul also basically the same definition but then it is about a lot of decisions.

Subjectivity is really radically different from objectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I agree that the way that things are decided matter very much. The problem (and reason why I tend to stay out of debates on subjective matters such as this) are that they are tough to discuss in a meaningful, understandable way. It is not that I don't grant them credence, because I do cherish them very much as monumentally important, but I find it more constructive to discuss topics that can actually be reasonably argued.

Then why don't you put forward some hypothesis to consider about how things are chosen in the universe? That is a factual issue.

 

[leibowde84]

So you don't reject subjectivity, but you require a definition of what love in fact is.

I already explained all of it. The objective definition of love is that it makes a decision turn out the way it does. Hate as exactly the same definition, the soul also basically the same definition but then it is about a lot of decisions.

Subjectivity is really radically different from objectivity.

So, why are there various words with seemingly drastically different meanings like "love" and "hate", when, in your mind, they have the same exact meaning? If you don't think they have the same meaning, what are the differences between them? This has been my question all along.

 

[leibowde84]

Then why don't you put forward some hypothesis to consider about how things are chosen in the universe? That is a factual issue.

Human choices are subjective. We aren't instinctively motivated like most other animals. We have reason and the ability to "think" about decisions. Not much to debate there.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Human choices are subjective. We aren't instinctively motivated like most other animals. We have reason and the ability to "think" about decisions. Not much to debate there.

You said you agreed with the definition of decision as a possibility, which is in the future, which is made the present or not.

There is nothing in the definition about animals or people. Could the solar system have turned out different than it did?

 

[metis]

As I have said or asked before, can you explain how the ACLU and the Butler Act were taught in Anthropology..

I cannot tell you how other anthropologists may have done it but only how I did.

I started out showing "Inherit the Wind" in the 1970's, but because the move has many inaccuracies, even though the trial parts were actually pretty accurate, I had to explain as the movie went on where the inaccuracies were and what really took place. After the movie, I then went into the verdict and outcome, and then covered the repeal of the Butler Act. I did explain to the students that the trial really was contrived and agreed upon by both parties, although I don't recall if I mentioned anything about the ACLU sponsoring it.

Since I had a theology background by taking classes during my undergraduate years, I covered different ways the creation accounts could be interpreted, plus I brought in a Baptist minister or deacon to cover their angle without any challenge from me. Students could ask them questions, and they certainly could ask me questions as well.

I gave confidential surveys at both the beginning and end of my course about student opinions dealing with evolution, and there was a relatively even split with the first survey between those who agreed with it, those who didn't, and those who were unsure. The survey at the end of the course had it that only one student in 30 years, with roughly five courses per year, who felt that evolution has not happened. So, either I'm the world's best salesman or the evidence speaks for itself, and the former is not the reality.

Did I answer your question?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, why are there various words with seemingly drastically different meanings like "love" and "hate", when, in your mind, they have the same exact meaning? If you don't think they have the same meaning, what are the differences between them? This has been my question all along.

You are simply trying to apply the rules for objectivity. You should simply follow the rules of subjectivity for any issue dealing with agency of decidions.

 

[leibowde84]

You said you agreed with the definition of decision as a possibility, which is in the future, which is made the present or not.

There is nothing in the definition about animals or people. Could the solar system have turned out different than it did?

Do you mean like variations in the amount of matter vs. Antimatter causing the big bang or something? I mean, if different things had happened the universe would of course be different.

 

[metis]

So, taking the bible out from public schools, because it’s “Poisoning our children’s mind”, and replace it with “Evolutions and Eugenics”, as Galton would say, “Eugenics…an orthodox religious tenet of the future” and disguised it as SCIENCE instead of admitting it as a religious act and not in any way an anti-Christian is not POISONING OUR CHILDRENS’ MIND?

That is inaccurate. According to the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the 1st Amendment, a governmental body may not endorse any particular religion or endorse strictly religious viewpoints, so the SCOTUS decided that teaching out of the Bible or any particular type of creationism is unconstitutional, with some very limited exceptions.

If Evolutionists has or had nothing to with Eugenics and Segregation, especially in the Scopes’ trial, where Darwin’s son, Leonard Darwin, president of the Eugenics Education Society at that time, who gave a “letter of support” to Henry Fairfield Osborn [Nebraska Man] and the ACLU who met with John Scopes, in New York, where they concocted the idea of incriminating Scopes ...

Eugenics is and was not at all intrinsic to the ToE, much like Social Darwinism is not intrinsic either. If you want to deal with how some will twist and turn things to suit their opinions, religions, including yours and mine, have a great many skeletons in their closets, and we could spend the rest of the day here listing them.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Do you mean like variations in the amount of matter vs. Antimatter causing the big bang or something? I mean, if different things had happened the universe would of course be different.

Not had happened, chosen. After all you said to agree with the definition. How are things chosen in the universe?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is inaccurate. According to the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the 1st Amendment, a governmental body may not endorse any particular religion or endorse strictly religious viewpoints, so the SCOTUS decided that teaching out of the Bible or any particular type of creationism is unconstitutional, with some very limited exceptions.


Eugenics is and was not at all intrinsic to the ToE, much like Social Darwinism is not intrinsic either. If you want to deal with how some will twist and turn things to suit their opinions, religions, including yours and mine, have a great many skeletons in their closets, and we could spend the rest of the day here listing them.

Is nonsense, we can teach how things are chosen in the universe, and how people choose. When we talk about agency of the decisions, then that is a matter of opinion, and so to force opinions on students, generally goes against the constitution. And liberals are most guilty of forcing opinions on students about women, homosexuals, sex, eugenics, capitalism and a whole host of issues.

 

[leibowde84]

Not had happened, chosen. After all you said to agree with the definition. How are things chosen in the universe?

How is what chosen, specifically? I'm not sure I understand the question. Also, who is doing the "choosing" in your question?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I’m not asking you. I’m asking Metis and if you follow or click the arrow up then you will understand it better.

I did and I'm still lost as to what your original point was. You named a bunch of stuff that is related but in no way seems to support your case.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How is what chosen, specifically? I'm not sure I understand the question. Also, who is doing the "choosing" in your question?

You said you agreed with the definition, and you said you agreed it was important to know how things are decided. You admitted the fact that for the universe there are possibilities which are made the present or not, that things could turn out several different ways, so how is it decided?

 

[leibowde84]

You said you agreed with the definition, and you said you agreed it was important to know how things are decided. You admitted the fact that for the universe there are possibilities which are made the present or not, that things could turn out several different ways, so how is it decided?

I said I agreed with you definition but I assumed it was limited to entities that can make choices or decisions. The universe is a descriptive teem describing the entirety of the cosmos. The cosmos is inanimate so it cannot make decisions. It seems like you are speaking about possibilities not choosing.