Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

We both know you only say to agree even when you don't agree. But why don't you follow up on what you agreed on?

And how do people decide? I mean as a matter of physics, how does a human being make a possibility the present or not?

Does this not involve matter according to you? Is the body and brain not material?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

Um, okay, not sure why you posted this again. So I'll just state again that I haven't seen a single person on this thread show any support for eugenics or segregation.

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

So what makes this any different than your silly argument that people who accept evolution are all Nazis who support eugenics and segregation???

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?
Do you think I don't have the original copy of thisThis 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.

Referring to a person as a "china man" is not a criticism of that person's argument. It's a racial slur against that person.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Hey, by chance, are all of your arguments based on subjectivity?
Is objectivity not allowed?

(Asking Mohammad Nur Syamsu here)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hey, by chance, are all of your arguments based on subjectivity?
Is objectivity not allowed?

(Asking Mohammad Nur Syamsu here)

......I already explained to you certainly 3 times already at least, that in creationism there are 2 categories, the creator and the creation. All what is in the creation category is a matter of fact issue. Creationism fully accommodates objectivity with an entire fundamental category. A fact is basically a model of something. The facts about the moon, are essentially a model of the moon. A book containing facts about the moon, is a 1 to 1 copy of the moon to a world of words, pictures and mathematics.

 

[Deathbydefault]

......I already explained to you certainly 3 times already at least, that in creationism there are 2 categories, the creator and the creation. All what is in the creation category is a matter of fact issue. Creationism fully accommodates objectivity with an entire fundamental category. A fact is basically a model of something. The facts about the moon, are essentially a model of the moon. A book containing facts about the moon, is a 1 to 1 copy of the moon to a world of words, pictures and mathematics.

But my issue is, what exactly is wrong with being completely objective?
I think you would have to be a robot or something similar for that to be physically possible...
But the question still stands.

What is wrong with wanting only facts and evidence for things?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But my issue is, what exactly is wrong with being completely objective?
I think you would have to be a robot or something similar for that to be physically possible...
But the question still stands.

What is wrong with wanting only facts and evidence for things?

You are correct that for a fact only view, you can only acknowledge the robotic, being forced, cause and effect. When you introduce freedom in your view of things, then as by logic, subjectivity is the only way to reach a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is. But also the fact category is expanded when freedom is introduced to your view of things, because the decisions, the result of the decisions, and the available alternatives are still matters of fact.

Basically science is now limited to only describe things in terms of being forced, cause and effect. Statistics and such look to be able to describe freedom as well, but statistics is said to be based on chaotically distributed variables. Like in a computer there is a register of aribitrary numbers, which numbers are used to simulate freedom. When the computer pops out number 3 one time and number 8 the next time, then it looks like the computer is choosing things, while actually it is just reading the next number on a list of aribitrary numbers. According to statistical theory the chaos of numbers on the list, is similar to the chaos of variables in nature.

Describing freedom mathematically is a complicated issue. It requires that objects are described as consisting of the laws of nature. That means objects, such as stones, are computers, the objects compute information. As laws unto themselves the objects then have anticipation in regards to the future, and retardation in regards to the past. You should just consider this in terms of that you can describe the object at present with mathematics, and that the object has these add-ons of retardation and anticipation coming from the present, which add ons can also be described with mathematics. Mathematically the anticipation is simply t+1, time +1, time +2 etc. and there are associate alternative potentials to t+1, like mass potential 2 or potential 3.

edit: to be precise the exact reason why facts cannot apply to the agency of a decision is because facts work by being forced, cause and effect. The actual moon is the cause, and the book about the moon containing the facts about it, is in essence the forced effect of that cause.

But the agency of a decision is free per definition, because it chooses. To then regard it as a matter of fact what the agency of a decision is, is to impose the logic of being forced unto the agency of a decision. It is saying freedom = force, which is a logical error.

 

[JM2C]

In what schools, exactly, are eugenics promoted?

Did you find the answer? I was hoping you would do the research. “By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students.” -Steve Selden
Can you explain Natural Selection?

 

[JM2C]

Referring to a person as a "china man" is not a criticism of that person's argument. It's a racial slur against that person.

You need to update your info first before you make comment. Criticizing his arguments was before I called him “china man” and before I called him “china man” he cursed me first.
Let me rephrase it in a simple term:
1)criticizing his arguments
2)he cursed me
3)I called him “china man”

Do you understand now? All you have to do is follow the arrows up.

 

[outhouse]

Do you understand now?

yes

two wrongs don't make it right

 

[SkepticThinker]

You need to update your info first before you make comment. Criticizing his arguments was before I called him “china man” and before I called him “china man” he cursed me first.
Let me rephrase it in a simple term:
1)criticizing his arguments
2)he cursed me
3)I called him “china man”

Do you understand now? All you have to do is follow the arrows up.

I've read the entire thread. Swearing and/or insulting a god is not the same thing as making a personal, racial remark against the individual you are speaking to. The fact that you're still trying to defend it is troubling to me.

 

[Parsimony]

Did you find the answer? I was hoping you would do the research. “By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students.” -Steve Selden

Eugenics as a topic discussed in the classroom is nothing surprising. I remember being taught about it myself. I was asking what schools promote it as an ideology that should be followed. Big difference there. There is nothing about accepting evolution that requires one to promote eugenics. Heck, micro-evolution is more relevant to eugenics than macro-evolution is and I have yet to see anyone deny micro-evolution (not even creationists do).

Can you explain Natural Selection?

Natural selection is the process by which different individuals in a population survive and reproduce with differing degrees of success depending on how well they are adapted to their environment. You don't doubt that's a real thing, do you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you find the answer? I was hoping you would do the research. “By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students.” -Steve Selden

Can you explain Natural Selection?

You know we are currently living in the year 2015, right? What schools are promoting eugenics in 2015?

What have you got to say about the religious support that existed at the time in favour of eugenics? Why are you only focusing on “evolutionists” that bastardized the theory of evolution into some kind of social philosophy? Does that not fit with the narrative you’re trying to create? Why don’t you bother to mention that ideas about eugenics long predate Darwin’s publishing of the theory of evolution?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You know we are currently living in the year 2015, right? What schools are promoting eugenics in 2015?

What have you got to say about the religious support that existed at the time in favour of eugenics? Why are you only focusing on “evolutionists” that bastardized the theory of evolution into some kind of social philosophy? Does that not fit with the narrative you’re trying to create? Why don’t you bother to mention that ideas about eugenics long predate Darwin’s publishing of the theory of evolution?

That racism predates the nazi's does not make the nazi's innocent of racism.

It is possible to have a value neutral understanding of natural selection theory, but it requires to know exactly where the line is between ought and is. And most people do not know exactly where that line is, which is why natural selection theory is routinely interpreted in social darwinist terms by lay people and professionals alike.

When evolutionists talk about "beneficial" mutations, differential reproductive "succes" and "struggle for" survival, do they then know exactly what the distinction is between that talk and proposing survival as a moral goal, or reproduction as a moral goal, or evolution as a moral goal? How does one formulate a moral goal?

The same sort of confusion might have come up as well with gravity theory if it had been formulated as differential falling "succes", with "beneficial" mass changes, in the "struggle for" depth. But with natural selection theory the confusion is much more insidious because it plays upon an inherent weakness of people to like to conceive of choosing as meaning to sort out the best result, which has very similar logic to selection of the fittest. People are naturally tempted to conceive of choosing that way, and natural selection plays on this temptation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Eugenics as a topic discussed in the classroom is nothing surprising. I remember being taught about it myself. I was asking what schools promote it as an ideology that should be followed. Big difference there. There is nothing about accepting evolution that requires one to promote eugenics. Heck, micro-evolution is more relevant to eugenics than macro-evolution is and I have yet to see anyone deny micro-evolution (not even creationists do).

Natural selection is the process by which different individuals in a population survive and reproduce with differing degrees of success depending on how well they are adapted to their environment. You don't doubt that's a real thing, do you?

Again, eugenics is taught and enforced in atheistic China starting from around 1998. Tracing back to the pre communist republican Chinese being influenced by Darwinism, and then this development was halted under communism, but revived with Deng Xiaou Ping, and is now seems to be a big theme in the family life of Chinese, and the ideology of the country. That's more than a billion people, a big share of the world population, and a major world power.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That racism predates the nazi's does not make the nazi's innocent of racism.

Who said it did?

It is possible to have a value neutral understanding of natural selection theory, but it requires to know exactly where the line is between ought and is. And most people do not know exactly where that line is, which is why natural selection theory is routinely interpreted in social darwinist terms by lay people and professionals alike.

It is? I don’t know any social Darwinists. Do you?

When evolutionists talk about "beneficial" mutations, differential reproductive "succes" and "struggle for" survival, do they then know exactly what the distinction is between that talk and proposing survival as a moral goal, or reproduction as a moral goal, or evolution as a moral goal? How does one formulate a moral goal?

Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. It’s not a moral goal.

The same sort of confusion might have come up as well with gravity theory if it had been formulated as differential falling "succes", with "beneficial" mass changes, in the "struggle for" depth. But with natural selection theory the confusion is much more insidious because it plays upon an inherent weakness of people to like to conceive of choosing as meaning to sort out the best result, which has very similar logic to selection of the fittest. People are naturally tempted to conceive of choosing that way, and natural selection plays on this temptation.

I’m sorry, I don’t know what this means.

 

[Parsimony]

Again, eugenics is taught and enforced in atheistic China starting from around 1998. Tracing back to the pre communist republican Chinese being influenced by Darwinism, and then this development was halted under communism, but revived with Deng Xiaou Ping, and is now seems to be a big theme in the family life of Chinese, and the ideology of the country. That's more than a billion people, a big share of the world population, and a major world power.

Which has nothing to do with whether living things actually evolve or not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who said it did?

It is? I don’t know any social Darwinists. Do you?

Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. It’s not a moral goal.

I’m sorry, I don’t know what this means.

To distinghuish fact from opinion requires acceptance of creationist philosophy. Evolutionists oppose creationism. And then evolutionists begin to talk about selfish this, altruistic that, struggle for succes. Using all kinds of emotive words that properly belong to subjective discourse.

It is also social darwinism when on account of natural selection theory it is said that what is good is relative to the environment, because fitness is relative to the environment. It is also social darwinism when it is said to counter the selfish behaviour that natural selection brings (must we also morally oppose what gravity brings?). it is social darwinism when it is said that natural selection states that organisms like to survive.

So first you break down the only way to distinghuish fact from opinion, by taking out creationism. Then you use a lot of emotive words. Then you assert you are just conveying facts. It doesn't add up, it is not right.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Which has nothing to do with whether living things actually evolve or not.

It has to do with the possibility of you and your family being killed by a marauding tribe of 100's of millions of people who identify themselves as being organisms in a struggle for survival where only the fittest survive.

 

[Parsimony]

It has to do with the possibility of you and your family being killed by a marauding tribe of 100's of millions of people who identify themselves as being organisms in a struggle for survival where only the fittest survive.

So what's your point then?