Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

You all got no argumentation, so you resort to other tactics. The creationist conceptual scheme has solid definitions which are in use for thousands of years. And common discourse has the same structure as creationism. In common discourse freedom is regarded as real, and subjectivity is accepted.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You all got no argumentation, so you resort to other tactics. The creationist conceptual scheme has solid definitions which are in use for thousands of years. And common discourse has the same structure as creationism. In common discourse freedom is regarded as real, and subjectivity is accepted.

Ya see, what you are saying is only logical to you.
You're the one whose arguing in our territory.
Coming in and saying everything is false without evidence doesn't work.
Actually, it will never work, not on us.

You would have to be extremely gullible to buy into the crap you say.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

Authoritarian huffing and puffing again. Obviously when you explictly deny facts are in essence models, then we can be sure there is no corresponding 1 to 1 reality to what you propose as facts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ya see, what you are saying is only logical to you.
You're the one whose arguing in our territory.
Coming in and saying everything is false without evidence doesn't work.
Actually, it will never work, not on us.

You would have to be extremely gullible to buy into the crap you say.

You all deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity. That is the plain fact of the matter.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You all deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity. That is the plain fact of the matter.

Blah blah blah.
Get a new tune, broken record.
I care little for what you have to say.

Until you can prove something you're simply uninteresting.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Blah blah blah.
Get a new tune, broken record.
I care little for what you have to say.

Until you can prove something you're simply uninteresting.

The proof was provided.

And everybody can see that evolutionists propose no theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant.

The whole evolutionist scene is obviously awash with atheists who regard good and evil as matter of fact issues. An atheist will always require that a statement is forced by evidence, regardless if the issue is the goodness or evil of a man, or if it is the salinity of a pool of water. Atheists don't do subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The proof was provided.

And everybody can see that evolutionists propose no theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant.

The whole evolutionist scene is obviously awash with atheists who regard good and evil as matter of fact issues. An atheist will always require that a statement is forced by evidence, regardless if the issue is the goodness or evil of a man, or if it is the salinity of a pool of water. Atheists don't do subjectivity.

I honestly couldn't care what the atheist community is "awash" with.
They could all be baby eaters and wife beaters, it doesn't affect who I am.
I dislike what you are saying because you actually do not have any proof. None.
You do not have one bit of factual and true evidence that supports any of your claims.

I hate false information, it will only ever **** me off.

And It's not that "Atheists don't do subjectivity".
You creationists just overdo it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And It's not that "Atheists don't do subjectivity".
You creationists just overdo it.

Sure, atheists accept subjectivity, except for the subjective part of it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Sure, atheists accept subjectivity, except for the subjective part of it.

If you can't prove it, or are not willing to, don't say it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you can't prove it, or are not willing to, don't say it.

Which is of course how atheists reject subjectivity, by requiring proof for anything, or it's not real. So either goodness and evil are aspects of the genes, or the brain, or goodness and evil of a man are not real.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Which is of course how atheists reject subjectivity, by requiring proof for anything, or it's not real. So either goodness and evil are aspects of the genes, or the brain, or goodness and evil of a man are not real.

Well....
"good" and "evil" are subjective.
There is no such thing as someone who is objectively good or evil.
So you could say they are man made words that hold no place in reality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well....
"good" and "evil" are subjective.
There is no such thing as someone who is objectively good or evil.
So you could say they are man made words that hold no place in reality.

Which means of course that you reject subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Which means of course that you reject subjectivity.

Hm, well I don't really reject it.
IHOP is still better than Denny's, IMO.

I would if I could though, it's sadly something that is a forced experience for "intelligent" life.
Lacking the ability to experience emotions like you does not mean I cannot experience emotions overall.
Though that would be nice too.

Also, I still haven't seen any issue with rejecting subjectivity.
I'd more than happily do so, objectivity is much better.
I'm sure you think all of the people who reject it would end up like myself.
That would be entertaining.

 

[Shad]

Authoritarian huffing and puffing again. Obviously when you explictly deny facts are in essence models, then we can be sure there is no corresponding 1 to 1 reality to what you propose as facts.

Nope. I understand scientific models and you do not. You are doing now no more than you have been doing previously by making up definitions of things you have no knowledge of as you do along. I did not deny facts I told you how facts come into play before models as a model may not be a fact. Your ideas are pseudoscience, nothing more

scientific modeling | science | Britannica.com

 

[Shad]

Blah blah blah.
Get a new tune, broken record.
I care little for what you have to say.

Until you can prove something you're simply uninteresting.

I think he is an interesting example of a lack of education and how his sophistry traps him into looking foolish

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. I understand scientific models and you do not. You are doing now no more than you have been doing previously by making up definitions of things you have no knowledge of as you do along. I did not deny facts I told you how facts come into play before models as a model may not be a fact. Your ideas are pseudoscience, nothing more

scientific modeling | science | Britannica.com

What you are saying is meaningless authoritarian huffing and puffing and also nonsense.

Anybody can see for themselves that the meaningful definition of fact is that it models something. As one would use in common discourse, as well as in science.

The facts about the moon are a model of it. And the exhaustive mathematical model of the moon, are the ideal facts about the moon.

It seems to me when you say data is fact, that then you would be saying the light reflected of the moon are the facts about the moon. But of course the data is to be interpreted in terms of accurately reflecting something, and then it becomes fact. The existence of this data is also fact, but in saying that then you are modelling the data. We could also interpret the moon itself as data, just as well we could interpret the light coming from the moon as data.

Also, many things cannot be directly measured, such as time, which is measured indirectly by measuring the space parameter. This has lead many scientists to incorrectly claim that time moves slower and faster, on account of Einstein's theories. And of course it is obvious they would make that mistake when they consider data = fact.

A scientist needs to consider that the laws of nature cannot exist indepently, hanging from a sky hook in the universe, dictating everything. The objects consist of the laws of nature, and being as such the objects produce information (data), which information we can then receive with all sorts of measurement devices.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think he is an interesting example of a lack of education and how his sophistry traps him into looking foolish

The common denominator why you all side together is that you reject subjectivity. For the rest you are as wide apart in your views as can be.

 

[Shad]

What you are saying is meaningless authoritarian huffing and puffing and also nonsense.

You are anti-science then, not my issue.

Anybody can see for themselves that the meaningful definition of fact is that it models something. As one would use in common discourse, as well as in science.

Only if they are incompetent like yourself. A fact is evidence. A model explains those facts. If a model is wrong by definition it is not a fact. Many models were wrong such a geocentric models

The facts about a moon are a model of it. And the exhaustive mathematical model of the moon, are the ideal facts about the moon.

Only if the model is correct but it still does not make a model a fact.

It seems to me when you say data is fact, that then you would be saying the light reflected of the moon are the facts about the moon. But of course the data is to be interpreted in terms of accurately reflecting something, and then it becomes fact. The existence of this data is also fact, but in saying that then you are modelling the data. We could also interpret the moon itself as data, just as well we could interpret the light coming from the moon as data.

Wrong Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, many things cannot be directly measured, such as time, which is measured indirectly by measuring the space parameter. This has lead many scientists to incorrectly claim that time moves slower and faster, on account of Einstein's theories. And of course it is obvious they would make that mistake when they consider data = fact.

If things can not be measured then any model is not a fact, see above.

A scientist needs to consider that the laws of nature cannot exist indepently, hanging from a sky hook in the universe, dictating everything. The objects consist of the laws of nature, and being as such the objects produce information (data), which information we can then receive with all sorts of measurement devices.

No they do not. You confuse your refusal of science with what scientists should do. Laws of nature is metaphysical views. Scientists follow scientific laws which is different. Again demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

Laws of Nature | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Shad]

The common denominator why you all side together is that you reject subjectivity. For the rest you are as wide apart in your views as can be.

Never rejected subjectivity, only your confused and ill-founded idea of it since you think rocks have a mind. Subjectivity is dependent on the mind. Strawman.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Why would the meaning of the term "fact" that you claim is used in "common discourse" and science not be included in any scientific dictionary? Do you see how ridiculous that claim is? You can't possibly believe that, so I'm just going to have to assume you are being dishonest. If I am wrong, please provide at least something to support your argument that isn't just another baseless claim made by you. Where can I find the definition/meaning you claim is "common discourse" in any legitimate source? If you can't provide any external support for your argument, I have to assume you are, yet again, being dishonest.