Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

No, you reject subjectivity it means you lost. You can go play debating games with yourself.

Cowering from a legitimate challenge to your position is not a very good way of defending it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have not defined it once. You have merely explained you belief in its relation to subjectivity or "choosing". That is an extremely vague and lacking definition. I want to know what it states about adaptations, the age of the earth, species, etc. Can you provide that?

It's more nonsense from you, I explained creationism to you certainly 7 rimes, and on these forums maybe about 50 times already.

I defined basically every word, defined choosing, defined fact, opinion, the whole lot. And then you refer to a dictionary definition of fact as saying something undisputably true, which is vague garbage.

Vague garbagr is your perogative.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Cowering from a legitimate challenge to your position is not a very good way of defending it.

But dismissing childish debating tactics is a good way of defending. You have no conceptual scheme where subjectivity and objectivity are integrated and distinguished from each other. There is no challenge on your part, it is just more atheist nonsense.

 

[leibowde84]

It's more nonsense from you, I explained creationism to you certainly 7 rimes, and on these forums maybe about 50 times already.

I defined basically every word, defined choosing, defined fact, opinion, the whole lot. And then you refer to a dictionary definition of fact as saying something undisputably true, which is vague garbage.

Vague garbagr is your perogative.

But you haven't answered the questions I asked in any thread. Age of the earth? Age of the universe? How species have changed? Etc. I understand your views on subjectivity and choice. But that is not what I'm asking about.

Btw, still waiting for this mysterious comment of mine where I claim good and evil to be fact. Have you realized yet that you were wrong?

 

[leibowde84]

But dismissing childish debating tactics is a good way of defending. You have no conceptual scheme where subjectivity and objectivity are integrated and distinguished from each other. There is no challenge on your part, it is just more atheist nonsense.

Why do you refuse to answer everyone's questions. It makes your argument appear very weak.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. You can say it over and over, but you haven't provided any real evidence. What specifically has he stated that makes you 100% certain he does not believe in subjectivity? Still waiting for the comment of mine you claimed you could provide, btw.

I am not going to look it up, but the fact is that you explicitly said for some issues it is fact what is good and evil. And since you openly reject creationism as vague, then we can be sure that you regard good and evil as fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But you haven't answered the questions I asked in any thread. Age of the earth? Age of the universe? How species have changed? Etc. I understand your views on subjectivity and choice. But that is not what I'm asking about.

Btw, still waiting for this mysterious comment of mine where I claim good and evil to be fact. Have you realized yet that you were wrong?

Creationism does not hinge on the age of the earth, it hinges on the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[leibowde84]

I am not going to look it up, but the fact is that you explicitly said for some issues it is fact what is good and evil. And since you openly reject creationism as vague, then we can be sure that you regard good and evil as fact.

Why on earth would you think that me noting that a definition is vague is equivalent to me dismissing it? Do you know what vague means? I was speaking to your definition, not creationism itself.

 

[leibowde84]

Creationism does not hinge on the age of the earth, it hinges on the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

I'm not asking what it hinges on. I'm asking what creationism claims about these things.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Why on earth would you think that me noting that a definition is vague is equivalent to me dismissing it? Do you know what vague means? I was speaking to your definition, not creationism itself.

Remember who you're talking to?
Vague obviously means "false".

 

[jonathan180iq]

But dismissing childish debating tactics is a good way of defending. You have no conceptual scheme where subjectivity and objectivity are integrated and distinguished from each other. There is no challenge on your part, it is just more atheist nonsense.

How would you know unless you try?

 

[leibowde84]

I am not going to look it up, but the fact is that you explicitly said for some issues it is fact what is good and evil. And since you openly reject creationism as vague, then we can be sure that you regard good and evil as fact.

Lol. You are obviously just lying. If you werent you would cite my comment. I never claimed that good and evil were objective.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you refuse to answer everyone's questions. It makes your argument appear very weak.

Evolutionists always look to appearances, that looks weak to me. My argumentation is actually a solid conceptual scheme which has been in use for thousands of years on a practical basis.

 

[leibowde84]

Remember who you're talking to?
Vague obviously means "false".

Lol. I forgot he has his own meanings that he refuses to explain.

 

[leibowde84]

Evolutionists always look to appearances, that looks weak to me. My argumentation is actually a solid conceptual scheme which has been in use for thousands of years on a practical basis.

Yet you are unable to answer any questions. Sounds pretty "solid".

 

[Deathbydefault]

Lol. I forgot he has his own meanings that he refuses to explain.

Pretty sure he's just another "because God said so" kinda guy.
Though he hasn't hinted at it, I just get the feeling....

Why are homosexuals bad? Because God said so.
Why are atheists Satan worshipers? Because God said so.
Why are people who use the dictionary stupid? Because God said so.

See what I mean...

 

[leibowde84]

Evolutionists always look to appearances, that looks weak to me. My argumentation is actually a solid conceptual scheme which has been in use for thousands of years on a practical basis.

Why is "looking to appearances" weak? Also, can you point to anyone notable who shares your beliefs about this subject?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Lol. You are obviously just lying. If you werent you would cite my comment. I never claimed that good and evil were objective.

Obviously it would require effort to search your comment and when it is found you would just have some meaningless statement about it, and take no consrquence. Obviously Leibowde did say it, which is shown by that he rejects attributing the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choising, the existence of which spirit is a matter of opinion.

The fact is that leibowde rejects subjectivity, and denies freedom is real. These 2 always go together because subjectiviry opeates by choosing.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Obviously it would require effort to search your comment and when it is found you would just have some meaningless statement about it, and take no consrquence. Obviously Leibowde did say it, which is shown by that he rejects attributing the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choising, the existence of which spirit is a matter of opinion.

The fact is that leibowde rejects subjectivity, and denies freedom is real. These 2 always go together because subjectiviry opeates by choosing.

You say it like you're presenting a case in court....

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously it would require effort to search your comment and when it is found you would just have some meaningless statement about it, and take no consrquence. Obviously Leibowde did say it, which is shown by that he rejects attributing the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choising, the existence of which spirit is a matter of opinion.

The fact is that leibowde rejects subjectivity, and denies freedom is real. These 2 always go together because subjectiviry opeates by choosing.

Can you cite where I claimed this then at least? Because this isn't true either.