Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

I already explained exactly how social darwinism is derived from natural selection theory to you.

I know, and, according to the actual meaning of "evolution" and "social darwinism", your reasoning was flawed. You seem to be assigning your own arbitrary meanings to these terms, which is why I would be interested to see how you are defining them.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am well aware of people who talk in opinions, ever heard of my parents?
Regardless of that, subjectivity is not a one sided "love" matter, as I'm sure you know.
I believe you to be on the "love" side, while I am at an opposite end.
We aren't compatible, mentally or otherwise, so our discussion may as well end here.

That is, unless you do want to start talking facts.

I think you should chew on it yourself, because you have to build a bridge of understanding on how subjectivity works from where your understanding is now, to where you think your understanding should be as shown by your investigations of the issue, so it seems only you yourself can do it.

I am only interested in facts about how things are chosen.

 

[leibowde84]

I think you should chew on it yourself, because you have to build a bridge of understanding on how subjectivity works from where your understanding is now, to where you think your understanding should be as shown by your investigations of the issue, so it seems only you yourself can do it.

I am only interested in facts about how things are chosen.

So, do you reject objectivity? Do you think that subjective experience is all that exists?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I know, and, according to the actual meaning of "evolution" and "social darwinism", your reasoning was flawed. You seem to be assigning your own arbitrary meanings to these terms, which is why I would be interested to see how you are defining them.

Is a lot of nonsense..... and in my opinion it is obvious to anybody that you are distorting history.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, do you reject objectivity? Do you think that subjective experience is all that exists?

I already told you more than 5 times certainly. There are 2 categories in creationism, the creator and the creation. Subjectivity applies to the creator category, objectivity applies to the creation category. So that is 1 whole category for objectivity.

Maybe you should remember what I wrote after 5 times?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I already told you more than 5 times certainly. There are 2 categories in creationism, the creator and the creation. Subjectivity applies to the creator category, objectivity applies to the creation category. So that is 1 whole category for objectivity.

Maybe you should remember what I wrote after 5 times?

I bet he remembers. Its just he doesn't agree. Neither do I. I believe you to be wrong.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think you should chew on it yourself, because you have to build a bridge of understanding on how subjectivity works from where your understanding is now, to where you think your understanding should be as shown by your investigations of the issue, so it seems only you yourself can do it.

I am only interested in facts about how things are chosen.

It is to my understanding that human beings are just another animal that happened to be smarter than the rest.
It is my understanding that there is nothing individually special about a single one of us.
It is my understanding that emotions are driven by evolved instinctual traits e.g. love - mating.
It is my understanding that every single one of us, including yourself, is going to die without getting a say.

It is my understanding that we all are just completely pointless in every sense of the word.
It is my understanding that people create things such as religion to cope with that ^ knowledge.
It is my understanding that subjectivity is a "nothing" inside of the objective universes "something".

As you can see I attempt to "understand" quite a lot of things, that ^ isn't hardly even the start.
My investigations have made me quite pessimistic, not to say I wasn't already.
So my decided purpose in life is "fun" and lucky for some people I find facts fun.
That's where my subjectivity works from, those are my behind the scenes thoughts.

What is your purpose? Your understanding of the world? What is your meaning?
Why do you exist?

I say it's coincidence, all random chance.
You obviously think otherwise.
Invite me into your head for a bit, show me how you work.
Fair is fair my friend.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is to my understanding that human beings are just another animal that happened to be smarter than the rest.
It is my understanding that there is nothing individually special about a single one of us.
It is my understanding that emotions are driven by evolved instinctual traits e.g. love - mating.
It is my understanding that every single one of us, including yourself, is going to die without getting a say.

It is my understanding that we all are just completely pointless in every sense of the word.
It is my understanding that people create things such as religion to cope with that ^ knowledge.
It is my understanding that subjectivity is a "nothing" inside of the objective universes "something".

As you can see I attempt to "understand" quite a lot of things, that ^ isn't hardly even the start.
My investigations have made me quite pessimistic, not to say I wasn't already.
So my decided purpose in life is "fun" and lucky for some people I find facts fun.
That's where my subjectivity works from, those are my behind the scenes thoughts.

What is your purpose? Your understanding of the world? What is your meaning?
Why do you exist?

I say it's coincidence, all random chance.
You obviously think otherwise.
Invite me into your head for a bit, show me how you work.
Fair is fair my friend.

For example, most times when I meet somebody in person that I would deal with for a longer time, I would consciously try to see how they decide things. Exactly how I can ascertain these facts I don't know, it is just intuitive by focusing on the issue. And then I would make some opinion on who they are as making those decisions. In making that opinion, that sometimes is accompanied with expression in my imagination, after all opinions occur by choosing, so they are creative. So I would make some images about who they are as being the owner of their decisions, which I often remember. And this works better if somebody is close to me emotionally. And it is very curious for instance that somebody fat may be represented as skinny in my imagination, for the reason that I opine that they suffer being fat. Another time I made the image of this person as a shiny bronze statue, which meant IMO that this person has a lot of honest self-pride. If it were silver or gold then I guess it would mean that in my opinion this person was narcissistic.

etc. etc. etc. subjectivity is a very broad issue.

 

[Deathbydefault]

For example, most times when I meet somebody in person that I would deal with for a longer time, I would consciously try to see how they decide things. Exactly how I can ascertain these facts I don't know, it is just intuitive by focusing on the issue. And then I would make some opinion on who they are as making those decisions. In making that opinion, that sometimes is accompanied with expression in my imagination, after all opinions occur by choosing, so they are creative. So I would make some images about who they are as being the owner of their decisions, which I often remember. And this works better if somebody is close to me emotionally. And it is very curious for instance that somebody fat may be represented as skinny in my imagination, for the reason that I opine that they suffer being fat. Another time I made the image of this person as a shiny bronze statue, which meant IMO that this person has a lot of honest self-pride. If it were silver or gold then I guess it would mean that in my opinion this person was narcissistic.

etc. etc. etc. subjectivity is a very broad issue.

I see, so what pops up when thinking of me?

I can answer any needed questions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I see, so what pops up when thinking of me?

I can answer any needed questions.

I can't really get a proper idea about how you decide things by what you write on the internet.

 

[Shad]

Which means of course that you define choosing in terms of sorting out an optimal result, like every single last evolutionist. And that means that every time you made a decision you did the best by definition. It is just social darwinist egotripping, and has nothing to do with the science which describes freedom in nature.

No since my comment was about a rock not about myself. Try to read and understand the post you are replying to. I know its hard....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No since my comment was about a rock not about myself. Try to read and understand the post you are replying to. I know its hard....

That doesn't make sense. You insist that the position of an elctron around an atom is not decided, and then you insist that the deciding of people is electrochemistry in the brain. It can only mean that you regard choosing as sorting out an optimum like a robot, for instance a chesscomputer.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I can't really get a proper idea about how you decide things by what you write on the internet.

Fair enough.
But you wouldn't see anything of truth when watching me in real life.
I follow norms, so I simply copy how other people act, it's not hard.
Humans are very simple creatures, concerning patterns anyways.

I think the thing you would envision me as is a hunter (said after researching this subject).

I seem to envision you as a CEO for various reasons.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I bet he remembers. Its just he doesn't agree. Neither do I. I believe you to be wrong.

Which means you are a social darwinist, making what is good and evil a fact. There is of course no other way to categorically distinguish fact from opinion than creationism. It is immediately clear in creationism that conclusions about good and evil must be chosen. And choosing the conclusion makes it obviously a valid opinion.

Other people can waffle their way to sophistication about it, so that nobody can understand them, and then pretend they don't make good and evil into fact. But creationism with it's simple scheme of dual categories of creator and creation is the only philosophy which clearly and unequivocally categorizes opinions about good and evil separate from facts.

The goodness or evil of a man is properly attributed to their spirit which chooses. Not to their genetics, not to their actions, not to their brainchemistry, not to their environment, not to anything measurable at all.

 

[JM2C]

Firstly, I never argued that eugenics was not an ideology.

Meaning that you agreed eugenics is an ideology, right?

Secondly, trying to force someone to accept something as fact is not necessarily an ideology. Trying to prove to someone that the Earth is round would not be an ideology because it is something that can be confirmed as fact. Ideologies are opinions.

”force someone to accept something as fact” That’s exactly the meaning of Ideology, an ideological process that is unknown to the thinker and forces these ideas as the truth.

Marx defined "ideology" as a "false consciousness" of a ruling class in a society who falsely presents their ideas as if they were universal truth.

 

[JM2C]

Do you really think evolutionists accept the theory of evolution because "Darwin said so"? That's not how it works at all. We accept it because the evidence has borne it out. A person can be right about one thing and wrong about another. Heck, we know that Darwin's views about evolution were incomplete or sometimes even wrong.

What evidence are you talking about? From an inorganic matter to the first single celled organism is evolution to you? That is macroevolution. Macroevolution is an ideology.

 

[JM2C]

What makes you think eugenics is uniquely related to macroevolution and not microevolution?

The same way you think that eugenics is an ideology.

 

[JM2C]

That's cute.


If you are reading this, JM2C, that question was addressed to you and I still expect an answer.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my comment about nuclear fission: does accepting nuclear fission as a real phenomenon mean that one must also advocate dropping nuclear bombs on people?

It's the same thing as claiming that accepting evolution as a real phenomenon means that you must advocate eugenics. So then, do you accept nuclear fission as real?

Nuclear fission is a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, they still remain as theories.

 

[metis]

Nuclear fission is a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, they still remain as theories.

Sorry, but "macro-evolution" has long been proven beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. It is not "believed" it happened-- it has long been "known" by the scientific community that it very much has happened. Just because some will not accept known scientific axioms doesn't mean that these axioms don't exist. The reality is that the only general resistance to accepting the basic ToE comes from a rather far-out interpretation of the creation accounts by some Christians and most Muslims.

 

[Revoltingest]

For reference.....
Ideology | Define Ideology at Dictionary.com
By strict definition, scientific theory is not ideology.
Theories might inspire ideologies, but they are separate things.