Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So what's your point then?

That you are underestimating this whole evolution theory destroys religion and raises murderers issue. That creationism should be taught as the basic theory of origins of species. With creationism they can learn how to distinghuish fact from opinion, and then they can learn about descent with modification, without destroying their religion and raising murderers.

 

[Parsimony]

That you are underestimating this whole evolution theory destroys religion and raises murderers issue. That creationism should be taught as the basic theory of origins of species. With creationism they can learn how to distinghuish fact from opinion, and then they can learn about descent with modification, without destroying their religion and raising murderers.

Yeah, just like how the theory of nuclear fission lead to the creation of bombs and powerplant meltdowns that caused a whole lot of people to die and get cancer: it has no bearing on whether or not the theory of nuclear fission is correct or not. This is a perfect example of the "argument from adverse consequences" fallacy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yeah, just like how the theory of nuclear fission lead to the creation of bombs and powerplant meltdowns that caused a whole lot of people to die and get cancer: it has no bearing on whether or not the theory of nuclear fission is correct or not. This is a perfect example of the "argument from adverse consequences" fallacy.

You reject subjectivity yourself, you are yourself a social darwinist.

 

[Parsimony]

You reject subjectivity yourself, you are yourself a social darwinist.

Call me whatever you want to, but your argument from consequences will still be a fallacy.

 

[JM2C]

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.

The Equal Protection Clause only applies in the 14th Amendment. It says: “A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens.” -Wiki

Freedom of expression is the 1st Amendment. Can the EPC work with the 1st Amendment? Yes, if the speaker of the 1st Amendment is a non-white then the 14th Amendment can be applied as a protection from racial discrimination or ethnic background of the speaker. IOW, the 1st Amendment can protect not only the white, but also the non-white, to express its ideas, and the 14th Amendment protects or guarantees a non-white to express these ideas under his or her 1st Amendment rights.

The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, once labeled by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as “constitutional argument of last resort,” is often viewed as the constitutional power that can be used against racial and gender discrimination in society. In the Buck vs. Bell this same Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, in its infamous 1927 decision, he wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

What happened to the 14th Amendment rights of Carrie Buck, the Equal Protection Clause that says the right to procreate? Violated based on Eugenic principles.

This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman.

 

[JM2C]

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.

Would you accept denial as a show of support?

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

I did not state that anyone who accepted evolution are all Nazis. My argument is this: “The eugenics movement reached a climax in Nazi Germany where a state policy of racial hygiene based on eugenic principles led to the Holocaust and the murder by the German state of at least 10 million people.” –Wiki, that you wrongly concluded “that people who accept evolution are all Nazis who support eugenics and segregation”.

Eugenic principles were adopted by Hitler. People who accepted Evolution and Eugenics, long before Hitler did, were not necessarily Nazis. Nazis went too far and used eugenic principles to kill millions, known as eugenicide. Nazis were tried in Nuremberg and were found guilty. See the difference now? You can do a research on who gave Hitler the idea.

You need to understand that you cannot separate Evolutions and Eugenics like Darwin’s The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.

If you think that you only accepted evolution with no other doctrines attached to it, then you’re just like others who embraced anything without knowing what they’re embracing.

 

[outhouse]

You need to understand that you cannot separate Evolutions and Eugenics

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Evolution is fact with or without eugenics

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Call me whatever you want to, but your argument from consequences will still be a fallacy.

Evolution theory = social darwinism. It's not science.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Evolution is fact with or without eugenics

Selfish, beneficial, success in the struggle is how eugenic ideology is worded, not science.

 

[outhouse]

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Anything else is pseudoscience, and has ZERO credibility.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Anything else is pseudoscience, and has ZERO credibility.

So the evolution program is; deny freedom is real, reject subjectivity, make good and evil into fact, produce social darwinist ideology, have marauding tribes of people identify themselves in terms of being organisms in a struggle for survival and destroy all. See Italy, Germany, Japan and now China.

 

[outhouse]

Anything else is pseudoscience, and has ZERO credibility.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Anything else is pseudoscience, and has ZERO credibility.

The fact is that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. Things in the universe are chosen, evolution theory is just a lie by the people who brought world wars 1 and 2, and are now busy building up China as a social darwinist nation.

 

[outhouse]

Anything else is pseudoscience, and has ZERO credibility.

ZERO credibility

Have a nice day

 

[metis]

The Equal Protection Clause only applies in the 14th Amendment. It says: “A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens.” -Wiki

Freedom of expression is the 1st Amendment. Can the EPC work with the 1st Amendment? Yes, if the speaker of the 1st Amendment is a non-white then the 14th Amendment can be applied as a protection from racial discrimination or ethnic background of the speaker. IOW, the 1st Amendment can protect not only the white, but also the non-white, to express its ideas, and the 14th Amendment protects or guarantees a non-white to express these ideas under his or her 1st Amendment rights.

The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, once labeled by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as “constitutional argument of last resort,” is often viewed as the constitutional power that can be used against racial and gender discrimination in society. In the Buck vs. Bell this same Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, in its infamous 1927 decision, he wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

What happened to the 14th Amendment rights of Carrie Buck, the Equal Protection Clause that says the right to procreate? Violated based on Eugenic principles.

This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman.

Yep, I had a brain fart, so thanks for the heads-up. I meant to say "Establishment Clause" but somehow managed to screw it up when I posted.

 

[Shad]

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.

Strawman and red herring. I never rejected any such thing. You are unable to defend criticism of your opinion and your "fact" claims as neither have merit thus require the fallacies used as a deflection.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Strawman and red herring. I never rejected any such thing. You are unable to defend criticism of your opinion and your "fact" claims as neither have merit thus require the fallacies used as a deflection.

No religious person in their right mind would send their children to school to learn evolution, when they see what sorts of people evolutionists are.

To reject freedom is real, to reject subjectivity is valid, are defining characteristics of personality. And all evolutionists have this personality, as you can see on these forums. The droning tone of robotized "rationality" in their discourse is readily apparent.

And for people who accept subjectivity is valid, and freedom is real, they are a diverse bunch, because of choosing different things, and they have emotional depth.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Anything else is pseudoscience, and has ZERO credibility.

ZERO credibility

Have a nice day

Same here, people who don't accept the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe have no credibility with me.

I view them as cause and effect freaks. I find it very freaky.

 

[Shad]

No religious person in their right mind would send their children to school to learn evolution, when they see what sorts of people evolutionists are.

Hasty generalization.

To reject freedom is real, to reject subjectivity is valid, are defining characteristics of personality. And all evolutionists have this personality, as you can see on these forums. The droning tone of robotized "rationality" in their discourse is readily apparent.

Never rejected freedom, strawman.

And for people who accept subjectivity is valid, and freedom is real, they are a diverse bunch, because of choosing different things, and they have emotional depth.

Valid does not equal true, I accept subjective as believed to be true. Also another strawman.

So far 3 fallacies and not one addressing anything I have said. Do you even read people's posts? I already told you several times I am not a hard determinist. BTW that is the term you are should be using but seem oblivious of.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hasty generalization.



Never rejected freedom, strawman.



Valid does not equal true, I accept subjective as believed to be true. Also another strawman.

So far 3 fallacies and not one addressing anything I have said. Do you even read people's posts? I already told you several times I am not a hard determinist. BTW that is the term you are should be using but seem oblivious of.

You told me you're not a hard determinist, and then you said that nothing is chosen in the universe except in brains, and that what happens in the universe is chance. To make this contrast between spontaneity of people and spontaneity in the universe means your concept of choosing must be to sort out the best result. Sortingalgorithms are typically predetermined, like a coinslot, the dime is always going to fall into the dimeslot, that's how sorting works. etc.

So to make a long story short, you reject freedom is real, and you reject subjectivity in the creationist sense of those words. The creationist sense where a decision means to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. And the creationist sense of subjectivity where the agency of a decision (agency of a decisions is what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does) can only be identified by choosing what it is, resulting in an opinion.

You use completely different definitions for those words.