Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

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.

Wow you sure have that guy - who you've never met once in real life and only know a few things about - figured out.
Pretty amazing magic trick, but magic isn't smart nor is it intelligent.

Your grade is -1% better get it up before finals, you might not be able to move on from bigot class otherwise.

 

[Shad]

I don't give a **** how it makes me look, and science is not about how it makes people look.

If you do not use scientific terminology when discussing science it makes you look incompetent. You may not care but it does little to convince anyone else of your argument when it is flawed.

Simply you are incapable to deal with freedom between potential values 0 and 1 being decided on.

Nope, I just reject that a rock has a choice thus reject your model. Also strawman since I have repeatedly said I am not a hard determinist. You conveniently forget this if it helps your argument.

And you are not capable to describe human beings having the potential to vote left or right either.

Nonsense. People can make choices on a whim if they wish and often do.

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.

Nope. I have no issues with people picking to go left or right. I recongizes choice in humans as I have repeatedly said. Strawman.

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.

Only in regards to non-sentient things. Strawman.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you do not use scientific terminology when discussing science it makes you look incompetent. You may not care but it does little to convince anyone else of your argument when it is flawed.



Nope, I just reject that a rock has a choice thus reject your model. Also strawman since I have repeatedly said I am not a hard determinist. You conveniently forget this if it helps your argument.



Nonsense. People can make choices on a whim if they wish and often do.



Nope. I have no issues with people picking to go left or right. I recongizes choice in humans as I have repeatedly said. Strawman.



Only in regards to non-sentient things. Strawman.

Go ahead then describe how an aspect of the magnetic field varies between potential values 0 and 1 without using the word choosing. As that it matters which way it turns out.

Obviously you only say things because of how you think it makes you look. You say you accept people choosing, and say you are not a hard determinist. But when it comes to demonstrating this, then you are incapable to describe how an aspect of the magnetic field of a rock can turn out several different ways.

 

[Shad]

Go ahead then describe how an aspect of the magnetic field varies between potential values 0 and 1 without using the word choosing. As that it matters which way it turns out.

Obviously you only say things because of how you think it makes you look. You say you accept people choosing, and say you are not a hard determinist. But when it comes to demonstrating this, then you are incapable to describe how an aspect of the magnetic field of a rock can turn out several different ways.

It is determined by natural mechanics in which an outcome is determined by the environment the object is within. There is no choice involved since nothing is choosing anything. The outcome is based on probability in which the environment dictates what is more likely.

I differentiate between sentient and non-sentient objects. Simple.

More strawman arguments.

Also you do not seem to understand the word choosing.

Choosing | Define Choosing at Dictionary.com

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is determined by natural mechanics in which an outcome is determined by the environment the object is within. There is no choice involved since nothing is choosing anything. The outcome is based on probability in which the environment dictates what is more likely.

I differentiate between sentient and non-sentient objects. Simple.

More strawman arguments.

Also you do not seem to understand the word choosing.

Choosing | Define Choosing at Dictionary.com

That's just waffling. You said you are not a hard determinist. Probabilities actually only refer to chaotic determining factors forcing the result in the official version of it, not freedom. But okay, you want to interpret probabilities to describe freedom, then you can describe the available alternatives with them. Like 50 percent chance it turns out 0, and 50 percent chance it turns out 1. Your description obviously omits the act of making one of the alternatives the present, or to make a possibility the present or not. It is incomplete, the logic does not function, it is stuck at probablities.

So you see, you just write politically correct nonsense as a facade. You do not and cannot describe in terms of that the electrons in the brain can turn out several different ways, you cannot describe in terms of that the human body can turn out several different ways. Nor that an aspect of a magnetic field can turn out several differen ways. You can only describe in terms of the laws of nature forcing the way it turns out, dictating it, without it being possible that it turns out any other way.

You are an atheist, you reject subjectivity, and because subjectivity operates by choosing, you reject choosing as well.

 

[Shad]

That's just waffling. You said you are not a hard determinist.

You do not know what the difference between a sentient being which can choice and a non-sentient being which can not. Hard determinism treats both as the same as all acts are merely the products of natural mechanics. That the mind's opinion is merely a reaction to a predetermined action of the body.

Probabilities actually only refer to chaotic determining factors forcing the result in the official version of it, not freedom.

Which why it applies to natural mechanics you are attempting to use an example with crystals, rocks and magnet fields. No of which are choices by the object itself. Mars does not choose to have a weak magnetic field, it is only capable of having a weak one due to natural mechanics and natural properties of Mars.

But okay, you want to interpret probabilities to describe freedom, then you can describe the available alternatives with them. Like 50 percent chance it turns out 0, and 50 percent chance it turns out 1. Your description obviously omits the act of making one of the alternatives the present, or to make a possibility the present or not. It is incomplete, the logic does not function, it is stuck at probablities.

Strawman since I clearly differentiated between non-sentient and sentient objects. Besides you are in error since probability includes different outcomes. Either you do not know the word or how probability models work

Probability | Define Probability at Dictionary.com

So you see, you just write politically correct nonsense as a facade. You do not and cannot describe in terms of that the electrons in the brain can turn out several different ways, you cannot describe in terms of that the human body can turn out several different ways. Nor that an aspect of a magnetic field can turn out several differen ways. You can only describe in terms of the laws of nature forcing the way it turns out, dictating it, without it being possible that it turns out any other way.

Strawman again, same errors pointed out in the 3 above quotes.

I accounted for it based on natural mechanics which you ignored while attempting to use natural mechanics as an example while calling it something different such as a choice. A person can not decide to be tall or short nor can their parents. How their body forms in dictated by their genetics. A magnetic field is determined by the objects natural properties as per my Mars example. You rejection and misunderstanding of natural mechanics are either due to being uneducated or incompetent.

You are an atheist, you reject subjectivity, and because subjectivity operates by choosing, you reject choosing as well.

Strawman since I clearly have said otherwise.

It is amazing how much you need to make up or just blatantly lie when your flawed ideas are exposed. You think rocks can choose which is both hilarious and sad.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You do not know what the difference between a sentient being which can choice and a non-sentient being which can not. Hard determinism treats both as the same as all acts are merely the products of natural mechanics. That the mind's opinion is merely a reaction to a predetermined action of the body.




Which why it applies to natural mechanics you are attempting to use an example with crystals, rocks and magnet fields. No of which are choices by the object itself. Mars does not choose to have a weak magnetic field, it is only capable of having a weak one due to natural mechanics and natural properties of Mars.



Strawman since I clearly differentiated between non-sentient and sentient objects. Besides you are in error since probability includes different outcomes. Either you do not know the word or how probability models work

Probability | Define Probability at Dictionary.com



Strawman again, same errors pointed out in the 3 above quotes.

I accounted for it based on natural mechanics which you ignored while attempting to use natural mechanics as an example while calling it something different such as a choice. A person can not decide to be tall or short nor can their parents. How their body forms in dictated by their genetics. A magnetic field is determined by the objects natural properties as per my Mars example. You rejection and misunderstanding of natural mechanics are either due to being uneducated or incompetent.



Strawman since I clearly have said otherwise.

It is amazing how much you need to make up or just blatantly lie when your flawed ideas are exposed. You think rocks can choose which is both hilarious and sad.

Well you are just not intelligent enough to understand that you are in fact rejecting subjectivity, and rejecting freedom is real.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nobody who distinguishes opinion from fact would say it was a matter of opinion how fact and opinion can be distinguished.

Your logic is circular and irrelevant. I asked how someone who avidly supports the concept of universal healthcare to all equally for the sake of the public health could be a social Darwinist. Either your definition of social Darwinism is inherently flawed or...well there really isn't any other option here.

 

[Shad]

Well you are just not intelligent enough to understand that you are in fact rejecting subjectivity, and rejecting freedom is real.

Nope. Subjectivity applies to humans not to rocks, crystals, magnetic fields, etc. It seems like you do not know the definition of the word subjectivity. A rock has no mind thus subjectivity does not apply to it.

Subjectivity | Define Subjectivity at Dictionary.com
Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com

 

[leibowde84]

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

What part of my comment specifically is illogical in your opinion? And, what do you mean by "what write is just 'waffle'"?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

That is not true. I never provided the definition for the word "fact", but here it is just so you can see how clear it is:
fact: definition of fact in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
fact
fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.
   "she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"
   synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

A "fact" is merely anything that adheres to reality. "The moon is spherical" is a fact. It is a fact that "Obama is the President of the United States". A "fact" is something that is indisputably true. Now, you are obviously free to consider your definition as superior, but that doesn't really help your case, as you are the only one who uses the term in the way that you do. Thus, continuing to use it as such merely adds to confusion. So, in actuality, your definition is incoherent.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Alright, we get the point, he is "ignorant of freedom". But, what evidence do you have that the "crystalization" can turn out several different ways. It sounds like you just assume it and attack anyone who questions it, but that makes us assume that you don't have an actual basis for your argument beyond you thinking it is "ignorant" to think of it any other way. What specific evidence points to the crystalization being able to "turn out several different ways"?

 

[David M]

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.

Words have more than 1 definition in English. Which is why you really need to learn how to use a dictionary/

Fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true

It is known to be true that the earth orbits the sun.
It is known to be true that organisms evolve.

 

[leibowde84]

"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.

Wow, you really need to study up on the meanings of terms. The examples you pointed to aren't "emotive", they are "qualitative".

1. Reproductive "success" means that an organism reproduces. Not too tough to understand. No emotion there.
2. "Better" adjusted to their current environment means that they are able to survive more easily. No emotion there ... just a matter of effort.
3. The perpetuation of genetic "qualities" is not emotive at all, and I'm not even sure how YOU could make this mistake. Genetic "qualities" are genetic "characteristics" that are objective and observable. There can be both beneficial or detrimental characteristics, but the term "genetic qualities" does not specify either.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, that just great. Now Mohammad thinks that rock have freedom of choice.

How rocks are formed or more precisely how minerals crystallised, is how atoms are bound together as molecules, have everything to do with natural mechanism of molecules in mineral, and not how they choose freely to form.

And it certainly don't required any God or designer on how rocks are formed.

You really don't know much about geology, Mohammad, just as you don't know anything about biology, politics or social philosophy. And the funny thing is how you are attempting to mash everything together with your incoherent and often baseless claims.

 

[gnostic]

Wow, you really need to study up on the meanings of terms. The examples you pointed to aren't "emotive", they are "qualitative".

1. Reproductive "success" means that an organism reproduces. Not too tough to understand. No emotion there.
2. "Better" adjusted to their current environment means that they are able to survive more easily. No emotion there ... just a matter of effort.
3. The perpetuation of genetic "qualities" is not emotive at all, and I'm not even sure how YOU could make this mistake. Genetic "qualities" are genetic "characteristics" that are objective and observable. There can be both beneficial or detrimental characteristics, but the term "genetic qualities" does not specify either.

Another topic that Mohammad dared to venture, but cannot possibly grasp.

To Mohammad:

leibowde84 is correct that the languages to those words you have used, are qualitative mean of measures or observations, not emotive language that you have been claiming.

Qualitative observations are great for when you cannot quantify the observations, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is emotive in contexts.

Seriously, you have to stop making things up, and do some researches before making claims of things that you don't really understand.

Why do you do that?

I am not against anything about you expressing your opinions, Mohammad...I just don't think you should express them as if they were facts, especially if you don't really know what you are talking about.

It just friendly advice, that you don't have much in way of qualification or experience to teach people, because all you end up doing is make yourself look silly or foolish. You should learn from other people, rather than attempting to teach, because a lot of opinions and claims are either wrong, or worse, just made up.

If you don't know about something, ask someone to explain. Don't make things up or pretend you know something when you actually don't know.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is not true. I never provided the definition for the word "fact", but here it is just so you can see how clear it is:
fact: definition of fact in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
fact
fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.
   "she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"
   synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

A "fact" is merely anything that adheres to reality. "The moon is spherical" is a fact. It is a fact that "Obama is the President of the United States". A "fact" is something that is indisputably true. Now, you are obviously free to consider your definition as superior, but that doesn't really help your case, as you are the only one who uses the term in the way that you do. Thus, continuing to use it as such merely adds to confusion. So, in actuality, your definition is incoherent.

My way of fact as model is the main way that it is used in science as well as common discourse. All what you write is nonsense waffling to try to hide the fact that you reject subjectivity and deny freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Another topic that Mohammad dared to venture, but cannot possibly grasp.

To Mohammad:

leibowde84 is correct that the languages to those words you have used, are qualitative mean of measures or observations, not emotive language that you have been claiming.

Qualitative observations are great for when you cannot quantify the observations, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is emotive in contexts.

Seriously, you have to stop making things up, and do some researches before making claims of things that you don't really understand.

Why do you do that?

I am not against anything about you expressing your opinions, Mohammad...I just don't think you should express them as if they were facts, especially if you don't really know what you are talking about.

It just friendly advice, that you don't have much in way of qualification or experience to teach people, because all you end up doing is make yourself look silly or foolish. You should learn from other people, rather than attempting to teach, because a lot of opinions and claims are either wrong, or worse, just made up.

If you don't know about something, ask someone to explain. Don't make things up or pretend you know something when you actually don't know.

Evolutionists present no theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the umiverse. They deny freedom is real. And the reason atheists are attracted to evolution theory like flies are attracted to dung, is bevause evolution theory posits love as fact. Organisms struggle for survival, they have reproductive success, the genes are selfish, the mutations beneficial. Atheists want morality to be an objective matter of fact issue, and not refer goodness and evil of a man to the unevidenced spirit of the man doing the choosing.

 

[Shad]

My way of fact as model is the main way that it is used in science as well as common discourse. All what you write is nonsense waffling to try to hide the fact that you reject subjectivity and deny freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

You are in error then since a fact is not a model. A fact is data, a model explains the fact.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm still just in awe of his magical ability.

He can see things that aren't there.
He can change definitions.
He can claim whatever he wants and not give proof.
He can factually tell you how you think as though it were true.
He regards what he says as truth and refuses outside information.

Wait, that isn't magic.
That's bigotry.