Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In common usage (after all you do love to claim that we should follow "common discourse") FACT AND OPINION DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. The terms cover different concepts. How many times do people have to tell this before you finally go and use a proper dictionary.

Which means of course that common usage is creationist, with 2 distinct categories.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What way are organisms chosen to be the way they are then? And that means you have to describe in terms of that it actually can turn out different ways.It means you cannot describe in terms of that they are forced to turn out the way the do.

They are not "chosen" and that's the issue.
They are "developed" to be the way they are.
No one chose to make my cat look like what we define as a house cat.
She is the cause of developments, of evolution.

 

[David M]

That is the the way that it is phrased and interpreted by all evolutionists. Same as with the example of the rocks it is interpreted that rocks like to roll down the hill, by noting it as success quality better etc..

No, that is the way that the terms are used as per their dictionary definitions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

They are not "chosen" and that's the issue.
They are "developed" to be the way they are.
No one chose to make my cat look like what we define as a house cat.
She is the cause of developments, of evolution.

You deny the fact that freedom is real, which got nothing to do with science, and everything to do with your habit of self congratulation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, that is the way that the terms are used as per their dictionary definitions.

Again, the context of denial of creationism shows that it is interpreted as fact that organisms like to live.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You deny the fact that freedom is real, which got nothing to do with science, and everything to do with your habit of self congratulation.

Don't give a damn about freedom.
Don't give a damn about myself.

All I care about in life is knowledge, these little debates are something I do as a 'side-quest' I'll get bored eventually.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Don't give a damn about freedom.
Don't give a damn about myself.

All I care about in life is knowledge, these little debates are something I do as a 'side-quest' I'll get bored eventually.

Except knowledge about how things are chosen.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Except knowledge about how things are chosen.

False information and false knowledge will only ever **** me off.
That's all you bring to the table, your worth to me as a human being is thin.
Please feel free to say something worth listening to whenever you like.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Absolutely my defining is way better than a dictionary.

This is why I don't rule out a patient troll.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is why I don't rule out a patient troll.

Again the actual definition of fact referenced in the dictionary was: fact 1. something done.

There done the earth revolves around the sun. It done that an organism transform in another.

i gather this is the way you insist is right, it being in the dictionary and all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

False information and false knowledge will only ever **** me off.
That's all you bring to the table, your worth to me as a human being is thin.
Please feel free to say something worth listening to whenever you like.

There is no use, because you don't accept freedom is real regardless.

 

[Deathbydefault]

There is no use, because you don't accept freedom is real regardless.

"Regardless".
Did I not make it clear that I do not care about freedom?
It isn't something I accept or deny.
Don't act like you know how I think.

You are not me.
You have never met me.
You only know what I have let you know concerning myself.
I do not recall ever saying "freedom ain't real" or anything close to it.
If you want to make baseless assumptions then be my guest.

Just don't do it to me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Regardless".
Did I not make it clear that I do not care about freedom?
It isn't something I accept or deny.
Don't act like you know how I think.

You are not me.
You have never met me.
You only know what I have let you know concerning myself.
I do not recall ever saying "freedom ain't real" or anything close to it.
If you want to make baseless assumptions then be my guest.

Just don't do it to me.

The body can make about a 100 drugs. Drugs can be addictive. Some drugs could be associated to ways of thinking. Like thinking you know for a fact what is good and evil, and then conceiving of choosing as soting out an optimal result, using the facts about what is good and evil as sorting criteria. Then as per definition everytime you make a decision you did the best, and when you did the best your brain give you drugs.

 

[Shad]

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.

Yes it can but that is not a choice of the rock. You are talking about natural mechanics and equivocating it with choice and design. Standard ID ignorance and word games. You know nothing about geology. I do not deny freedom, I deny your incorrect ideas about natural mechanics on rocks as a choice.

Let see one example of a rock making a choice.

 

[Shad]

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

You conflate natural mechanics with choice. Hence you use vague terms to cover for defined terms either do ignorance or word games.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The body can make about a 100 drugs. Drugs can be addictive. Some drugs could be associated to ways of thinking. Like thinking you know for a fact what is good and evil, and then conceiving of choosing as soting out an optimal result, using the facts about what is good and evil as sorting criteria. Then as per definition everytime you make a decision you did the best, and when you did the best your brain give you drugs.

Well for one to say something is "good" or "evil" is subjective.
Nothing can be "objectively good" or "objectively evil", isn't possible.
So there goes that point.

Also, I wasn't aware you knew anything of neurology, the drug you're thinking of is called dopamine.
But if it were so often given, as you claim, then everyone would be psycho.
It does happen, but usually during really intensive stuff, such as sex.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes it can but that is not a choice of the rock. You are talking about natural mechanics and equivocating it with choice and design. Standard ID ignorance and word games. You know nothing about geology. I do not deny freedom, I deny your incorrect ideas about natural mechanics on rocks as a choice.

Let see one example of a rock making a choice.

Which is because you define choosing as calculating an optimal result, using the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria. That is because you are an atheist.

Again, there are several different ways the crystilization can turn out. I suppose there also could be some magnetic field in a rock that can turn out different ways moment to moment.

The reason hard determinism is bull****, is because the idea implies that all information is contained in 1 moment in the past. Say you measure the magnetic field for a year, then you get a lot of different numbers. You are saying these numbers can be calculated by taking one moment in the past. I am saying these numbers are being newly created. Your mathematical description would be a horribly huge monstrosity of a formula to have to predict exactly all these varying numbers a year in advance. The mathematical description in terms of freedom would be much simpler.

Say in one aspect the magnetic field varies between 0 and 1.

If the data is 0010100100111111001010101011111111000000111, then you have to make a formula which predicts exactly that as the result. I would simply describe... on this aspect there are potentials 0 and 1, it is chosen. But maybe I would find some pattern in the choosing, as that it is intermittently chosen and forced, or chosen at once over a range of results. etc.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yep, still waiting for something smart.
Hell, I'll even take halfway intelligent.
Just so long as you stop spouting such nonsense.

 

[Shad]

Which is because you define choosing as calculating an optimal result, using the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria. That is because you are an atheist.

Strawman since my comment was about a rock with a clear distinction between it and a human

Again, there are several different ways the crystilization can turn out. I suppose there also could be some magnetic field in a rock that can turn out different ways moment to moment.

Which is not a choice of the rock or it's environment but a natural mechanic

The reason hard determinism is bull****, is because the idea implies that all information is contained in 1 moment in the past. Say you measure the magnetic field for a year, then you get a lot of different numbers. You are saying these numbers can be calculated by taking one moment in the past. I am saying these numbers are being newly created. Your mathematical description would be a horribly huge monstrosity of a formula to have to predict exactly all these varying numbers a year in advance. The mathematical description in terms of freedom would be much simpler.

Not a hard determinist when it comes to sentient entities which can use act freely, hence the difference between a human and a rock

Say in one aspect the magnetic field varies between 0 and 1.

If the data is 0010100100111111001010101011111111000000111, then you have to make a formula which predicts exactly that as the result. I would simply describe... on this aspect there are potentials 0 and 1, it is chosen. But maybe I would find some pattern in the choosing, as that it is intermittently chosen and forced, or chosen at once over a range of results. etc.

You are injecting your terms into natural mechanics which is fallacious, nothing more. You can call it whatever you want but it does not make you correct. It makes you look dishonest since you freely change terminology to suit your argument which is an equivocation and weasel wording fallacy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Strawman since my comment was about a rock with a clear distinction between it and a human



Which is not a choice of the rock or it's environment but a natural mechanic



Not a hard determinist when it comes to sentient entities which can use act freely, hence the difference between a human and a rock



You are injecting your terms into natural mechanics which is fallacious, nothing more. You can call it whatever you want but it does not make you correct. It makes you look dishonest since you freely change terminology to suit your argument which is an equivocation and weasel wording fallacy.

I don't give a **** how it makes me look, and science is not about how it makes people look. Simply you are incapable to deal with freedom between potential values 0 and 1 being decided on. And you are not capable to describe human beings having the potential to vote left or right either. You are only capable to make up stories about how some people are forced to vote right, or forced to vote left. You will make up stories like, this issue weighed more heavily than the other issue for the voter, forcing the voter to vote right. Omitting the reality of voters who could vote either right or left in freedom, by choosing.

You define choosing as sorting out an optimum, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria. You reject subjectivity and you reject freedom.