Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

It is not really very impressive for a few atheists, materialists, evolutionists to refer to the authority of a dictionary. You all got nothing. No conceptual scheme like creationism where objectivity and subjectivity is all integrated and practically useful and distinguished from each other in 2 categories. You all write nonsense in denial of the plain fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and rejecting the validity of subjectivity.

Well there isn't any validity in subjectivity..
I mean, it's subjective.
It may be valid to some but not to a whole.
Objectivity is valid to all.
It's not something you get to pick to like.

Of course we refer to a dictionary
Where do you think the words you are using to post your messages are defined at?
If you can't use the dictionary for this language then it's almost like you aren't speaking it.
At that point words used become nonsense.
I dislike nonsense.

Actually we have a ton of things, backup wise and overall.

What does creationism have exactly?

 

[leibowde84]

It is not really very impressive for a few atheists, materialists, evolutionists to refer to the authority of a dictionary. You all got nothing. No conceptual scheme like creationism where objectivity and subjectivity is all integrated and practically useful and distinguished from each other in 2 categories. You all write nonsense in denial of the plain fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and rejecting the validity of subjectivity.

I just have to ask this. Do you think that your own definitions of terms are better than those found in dictionaries?

Well there isn't any validity in subjectivity..
I mean, it's subjective.
It may be valid to some but not to a whole.
Objectivity is valid to all.
It's not something you get to pick to like.

Of course we refer to a dictionary
Where do you think the words you are using to post your messages are defined at?
If you can't use the dictionary for this language then it's almost like you aren't speaking it.
At that point words used become nonsense.
I dislike nonsense.

Actually we have a ton of things, backup wise and overall.

What does creationism have exactly?

I just saw the cartoon. Muhammad just likes to think that he understands the cosmos better than any other person in the world.

 

[leibowde84]

If you are going to say it is nonsense to reach the conclusion love is real by choosing the answer, then I am going to say you reject subjectivity, obviously. And it is no coincedence that you do not accept freedom is real for the entire universe except in brains, and that you reject reaching the conclusion love is real by choosing the answer.

"If you are going to say it is nonsense to reach the conclusion love is real by choosing the answer, then I am going to say you reject subjectivity."
Again, this is what I mean by your "inability to provide a coherent argument"? Choosing that love is real is real subjectively to the individual. Objectivity when "choosing" whether love is real has no relevance. But, according to most people, there is a reality outside your mind. That is what the term "objective" refers to. Get it? I have never claimed that anything apart from the identifying linguistic concept of "love" exists in that reality. It all depends on the subjective reality of the individual experiencing it. None of this would even be disproved in any way even if, in the future, we were able to see thought patterns in the brain, as we are speaking to metaphysics, not psychology.

 

[gnostic]

That is never going to happen because there is a deep psychological craving to sustain the egotripping associated to regarding good and evil as fact which is the motivation for all this atheism, materialism and evolution nonsense. You will always have fear that this egotripping game is going to end and that there isn't any meaning in it.

If you accept freedom is real then you accept theory about how things are chosen in the universe, you do not. If you accept subjectivity, then you attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit which chooses, the existence of which spirit is a matter of opinion. You do not. You are just saying you accept freedom and subjectivity because it looks good, there is nothing behind it, it is just a facade.

This topic is about Intelligent Design vs Evolution, and neither of them IN ANY WAY talk of good vs evil, because good and evil is a social convention, not a biological one.

And when talk of Evolution, I am talking about BIOLOGY, not bloody Social Darwinism, which is a totally different topic. Social Darwinism is BLOODY POLITICS and SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY!!!!!!

Are you so bloody ignorant that you can't distinguish biology from politics and social science?

I don't give a bloody **** about Social Darwinism. I do not give a bloody **** about POLITICS, PERIOD. This topic is not about racism too, so I don't give a BLOODY **** about racism. Do you not understand?

And there is no such thing as "environmental racism". You are either racist because you hate someone's skin color or the language that they speak, but evolutionary biology has nothing to do with racism. You can't change the definition of racism to suit your illogical and incoherent opinions.

If anyone is ego-tripping is you.

BLOODY FRICKING HELL! Stop hijacking this thread.

1. If you want to have debate over about racism or about Social Darwinism, why don't you bloody START A NEW THREAD, instead of changing the topic.
   
2. If you want to talk about subjectivity, then start a new topic.
   
3. If you want to talk of freedom, free-will, freedom of speech, then start a new topic.

 

[leibowde84]

This topic is about Intelligent Design vs Evolution, and neither of them IN ANY WAY talk of good vs evil, because good and evil is a social convention, not a biological one.

And when talk of Evolution, I am talking about BIOLOGY, not bloody Social Darwinism, which is a totally different topic. Social Darwinism is BLOODY POLITICS and SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY!!!!!!

Are you so bloody ignorant that you can't distinguish biology from politics and social science?

I don't give a bloody **** about Social Darwinism. I do not give a bloody **** about POLITICS, PERIOD. This topic is not about racism too, so I don't give a BLOODY **** about racism. Do you not understand?

And there is no such thing as "environmental racism". You are either racist because you hate someone's skin color or the language that they speak, but evolutionary biology has nothing to do with racism. You can't change the definition of racism to suit your illogical and incoherent opinions.

If anyone is ego-tripping is you.

BLOODY FRICKING HELL! Stop hijacking this thread.

1. If you want to have debate over about racism or about Social Darwinism, why don't you bloody START A NEW THREAD, instead of changing the topic.
   
2. If you want to talk about subjectivity, then start a new topic.
   
3. If you want to talk of freedom, free-will, freedom of speech, then start a new topic.

He's probably making up his own definition for race as well. It never ends with him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wondered why I quit with this thread, and then I quickly remembered why.

He's probably making up his own definition for race as well. It never ends with him.

I don't know if he's making things up or is getting them from a very bad source. I don't rule out a very patient troll either, because he has been very persistent with things that are obviously not true, such as this "evolution = social darwinism" nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

He's probably making up his own definition for race as well. It never ends with him.

No, it doesn't.

I don't remember if English is second language for him.

If it is, then he really shouldn't be trying to change definition. The last thing he need, is to be misunderstood.

Because at the moment, it looks like he is making things up.

Worse still, he is making up things what people have written here. Accusing others of hating freedom, subjectivity or love, is utterly stupid. No one here is against these concepts, and yet he persisted as if he is telling the truth.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No, it doesn't.

I don't remember if English is second language for him.

If it is, then he really shouldn't be trying to change definition. The last thing he need, is to be misunderstood.

Because at the moment, it looks like he is making things up.

Worse still, he is making up things what people have written here. Accusing others of hating freedom, subjectivity or love, is utterly stupid. No one here is against these concepts, and yet he persisted as if he is telling the truth.

Here pass a meme on to you-know-who.

 

[David M]

But common discourse uses creationist logic where freedom is regarded as a reality, and freedom means that it can turn out several different ways. People were all creationist prior to Darwin, creationism was the common definition of terms in science as well.

Oh look a fiat definition of "common discourse".

 

[David M]

It is perfectly normal interpretation to interpret natural selection "struggle for survival", as that organisms like to live. It is wrong, but normal. And actually it is science which is at fault for using emotive terminology

No, that is your interpretation, and its wrong. The scientific definition avoids emotive terminology.

Here is a definition of Natural selection:

A natural process that results in an increased probability of survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups better adjusted to their current environment and that leads to increased chances of the perpetuation of genetic qualities better suited to that particular environment

So the problem is that you, and others, don't actually know what the science says. Which means that the real issue is that people can be ignorant.

 

[Shad]

You changed the example from the position of an electron round an atom to a rock because there is no apparent freedom in the way a rock turns out. But I am sure if rocks are looked at in detail over years there ar several ways in which a rock can turn out too. There is crystallization of rocks, it can turn out several different ways. And sure we could put some kind of sensitive measuring device on a rock, measuring whatever, and the measurements would vary.

Rock or electron, it does not matter since the same argument applies since both are non-sentient. I am using your argument regarding choice in which neither example has any. The rock makes no choice in being large or small, on a mountain or in a valley where as people can make choices and freedom of action. None of your examples are choices but are the results of objective natural mechanics. The rest of this comment is speculation as an ad hoc defense. Go put your "measuring device" on a rock, measure your "whatever" and claim your nobel prize is "whateverism"

Your logic of choosing is incoherent because you don't tie the logic of X turning out A or B to "sentience".

Actually I did as a choice is a characteristic of sentience as in the ability to do other than what nature dictates. A person can do this, a rock can not. You confuse the natural mechanic with a choice and/or decision which is solely your problem not mine.

We can see things turning out A or B everywhere in nature.

Which is not a choice of things but of natural mechanics effect on the things. The thing itself can not choose to become a crystal

 

[Shad]

He makes up his own meaning for terms in a pathetic attempt to bolster his argument. Not worth the trouble.

It is an ad hoc defense which is just a fallacious. Once terms start become vague or misapplied all his definition becomes equivocation fallacies as he makes up new definitions for his terms as he goes along. Natural mechanics effects on rocks becomes a choice for example.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I just have to ask this. Do you think that your own definitions of terms are better than those found in dictionaries?

Absolutely my defining is way better than a dictionary. You referenced the dictionary on the word "fact", and the first entry was "1. something done"

The other definitions were similarly vague and associative. A clear definition makes clear the logic used with the word. A fact is in essence a model. Evidence of something forces to produce a model of what is evidenced on a 1:1 basis. There is the actual moon, and a book about the moon, containing facts in the form of words, pictures and mathematics. The moon is the cause, the book the forced effect of that cause.

That you reference a dictionary just means you don't understand anything about it. Nor could you understand it, because creationism is foundational to all understanding, foundational to fact just as well as to opinion, and you reject creationism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is an ad hoc defense which is just a fallacious. Once terms start become vague or misapplied all his definition becomes equivocation fallacies as he makes up new definitions for his terms as he goes along. Natural mechanics effects on rocks becomes a choice for example.

That's nonsense. I used the same definitions from the start as I do now. I sometimes swap the meaning of the word decision between having alternatives in the future, one of which is made the present, and having a single possibility in the future which is made the present or not. But aside from that it is all basically solid.

creator
chooses
the existence is a matter of opinion
an opinion is arrived at by choosing about what is that chooses
spiritual domain

creation
chosen
the existence is a matter of fact
a fact is obtained by copying, evidence forcing to produce a model of what is evidenced 1:1
material domain

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Which is not a choice of things but of natural mechanics effect on the things. The thing itself can not choose to become a crystal

The crystilization can turn out several different ways. You are simply ignorant about freedom. If it were true that the crystilization processes can turn out several different ways you would not be able to describe it. That is the only reason why you describe it as entirely forced, and that it could not turn out any other way than it did, because you are ignorant about freedom. The evidence points to that there is freedom in the way the crystilization turns out. Just as well as the evidence points to the design of organisms being chosen as a whole, and not chosen in parts.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The crystilization can turn out several different ways. You are simply ignorant about freedom. If it were true that the crystilization processes can turn out several different ways you would not be able to describe it. That is the only reason why you describe it as entirely forced, and that it could not turn out any other way than it did, because you are ignorant about freedom. The evidence points to that there is freedom in the way the crystilization turns out. Just as well as the evidence points to the design of organisms being chosen as a whole, and not chosen in parts.

Wow, now you want to talk about evidence....

 

[gnostic]

Absolutely my defining is way better than a dictionary. You referenced the dictionary on the word "fact", and the first entry was "1. something done"

Are you seriously?

Most of times, you are bloody incoherent.

And when you attempt to explain what you are claiming, you are making things up, and you still incoherent. You refused to learn science or politics, and make more things up.

I hate to say this, but that you think any of your definitions is better, when most of the time you don't make sense, is outrageously laughable and tragically sad, all at the same time.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, that is your interpretation, and its wrong. The scientific definition avoids emotive terminology.

Here is a definition of Natural selection:

A natural process that results in an increased probability of survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups better adjusted to their current environment and that leads to increased chances of the perpetuation of genetic qualities better suited to that particular environment

So the problem is that you, and others, don't actually know what the science says. Which means that the real issue is that people can be ignorant.

"Success" "quality" "better" would be the emotive words.

So you would consider this just neutral terminiology?
Differential falling success of rocks. Which rocks roll down the hill the furthest depends on their quality for rolling down the hill. The rocks better adjusted for rolling down the hill roll down the furthest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you seriously?

Most of times, you are bloody incoherent.

And when you attempt to explain what you are claiming, you are making things up, and you still incoherent. You refused to learn science or politics, and make more things up.

I hate to say this, but that you think any of your definitions is better, when most of the time you don't make sense, is outrageously laughable and tragically sad, all at the same time.

You have no understanding of subjectivity and freedom, that is where your defining got you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I Choosing that love is real subjectively to the individual. Objectivity when "choosing" whether love is real has no relevance. But, according to most people, there is a reality outside your mind. That is what the term "objective" refers to. Get it? I have never claimed that anything apart from the identifying linguistic concept of "love" exists in that reality. It all depends on the subjective reality of the individual experiencing it. None of this would even be disproved in any way even if, in the future, we were able to see thought patterns in the brain, as we are speaking to metaphysics, not psychology.

We have entirely different conceptions of what being clear means. What you write is just waffle, it has no logic in it.