Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

To point out that evolutionists reject subjectivity altogether, which is evil, for instance.

So, enlighten us, why is "rejecting subjectivity" objectively "evil"? Or, is it just your subjective opinion that it is evil?

 

[leibowde84]

That's nonsense, it only shows you interpret evil as objective. I simply expressed my opinion.

Fair enough. Why do you think it is "evil"?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Fair enough. Why do you think it is "evil"?

It is already established that you reject subjectivity altogether by failing to acknowledge choosing in forming an opinion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It is already established that you reject subjectivity altogether by failing to acknowledge choosing in forming an opinion.

Cool, so what's your answer to the question?

 

[leibowde84]

See your idea about subjectivity does not depend on choosing, but depends on objective differences like different times, dufferent people......different genes etc. Your idea of subjectivity is simply objectivity.

No it isn't. You are just making another mistaken assumption. I still see the individual as "choosing" between "good" and "evil". I was merely pointing out that different experiences dependent, largely, on social environments. Even today, Eastern morality different in many ways from Western morality. These are objective realities that, undoubtedly, play a role in every individual's subjective opinion on what is "good" and "evil". That being said, the choice is still made by the individual. Don't you agree? If not, why not? Why do you think that objective realities don't impact our subjective opinions at all?

 

[leibowde84]

It is already established that you reject subjectivity altogether by failing to acknowledge choosing in forming an opinion.

Can you give an example of what you mean by "choosing in forming an opinion"? I understand what the term means, but I would better understand it if you could provide an example of this taking place. Thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

It is already established that you reject subjectivity altogether by failing to acknowledge choosing in forming an opinion.

Btw, not established. It's still just your opinion because you haven't provided any of my comments that support it. Just a baseless claim at this point.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Btw, not established. It's still just your opinion because you haven't provided any of my comments that support it. Just a baseless claim at this point.

"Just *another* baseless claim at this point."

 

[Parsimony]

A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it, right? Can you dispute nuclear fission? NO, because it was proven already. Did it break the law of conservation of mass and energy? NO! Did it break the 1st law of thermodynamics? NO! So, it qualifies as a proven scientific theory based on these two laws, right?

The failure to falsify something is not the same thing as proving it true. I still ask you, why would something being proven have any effect at all on whether or not you had to accept the ideologies associated with it? Why would nuclear fission being proven prevent you from having to accept that nuking people is good? If evolution was proven, would that suddenly make it possible to accept evolution without accepting eugenics? Explain why.

The Kinetic theory of gases explains Boyle’s law. Nuclear fission explains the law of conservation of mass and energy and the 1st law of thermodynamics. Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains the laws of gravity.

Nuclear fission doesn't "explain" the law of conservation of mass and energy, it simply follows it.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been expressed in many ways. Its first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824.

None of the ways in which the 2nd law is stated presents a problem for evolution.

Can you dispute the ToE and macroevolution? YES, because there is no law that governs ToE and macroevolution.

Indeed there are. Look up the Hardy-Weinberg principle, which demonstrates why evolution must occur in any realistic population.

In fact, they both break the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy therefore they should not qualify as scientific theories.

Evolution does not violate any thermodynamic laws. If you think it does, then you either misunderstand evolution or misunderstand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution is the result of entropy decreasing locally. There are no physical laws against that. We've already been through this.

The law is telling us what happens while theory is telling us why and how. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is telling us that things breaks because of entropy

The 2nd law tells us that things run-down over time in a system as a whole: individual parts within a system can decrease in entropy if there is a corresponding increase in entropy elsewhere. The biosphere itself is an example of this and would be so with or without evolution.

ToE and macroevolution is telling us that everything evolved from inorganic matter to the first single-celled organism.

This only verifies that you have a straw-man understand of evolution. What you are talking about here is abiogenesis, not evolution. How can you properly debate evolution if you misunderstand and misrepresent it?

No new genetic information can be added to a genome. Genetic mutation is not a mechanism that can add new genetic information to a genome.

It can and has. New genes with new properties can and have been created through mutation. Look up nylonase, aerobic citrate-metabolizing E.coli and AZT-resistance in HIV. Each one of these instances represent the gaining of new capabilities via mutation. In the case of the E.coli, the genome itself was actually made larger since the mutation which gave it new capabilities was a gene duplication event.

“I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” -Dr. Spetner

Dr. Lee Spetner apparently has not heard of the before-mentioned mutations (or has a faulty understanding of them). He is also a physicist, not a biologist. He is not an authority on the subject.

I will not do that.

Come on man, why not? It's just an act of common courtesy.

You don’t have to force people to believe it as a fact because it is a fact or proven fact while an ideology is not.

Maybe you need to talk to the Flat-Earth Society.

 

[leibowde84]

A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it, right? Can you dispute nuclear fission? NO, because it was proven already. Did it break the law of conservation of mass and energy? NO! Did it break the 1st law of thermodynamics? NO! So, it qualifies as a proven scientific theory based on these two laws, right?

The Kinetic theory of gases explains Boyle’s law. Nuclear fission explains the law of conservation of mass and energy and the 1st law of thermodynamics. Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains the laws of gravity.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been expressed in many ways. Its first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824.

Can you dispute the ToE and macroevolution? YES, because there is no law that governs ToE and macroevolution. In fact, they both break the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy therefore they should not qualify as scientific theories.

The law is telling us what happens while theory is telling us why and how. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is telling us that things breaks because of entropy while the ToE and macroevolution is telling us that everything evolved from inorganic matter to the first single-celled organism. No new genetic information can be added to a genome. Genetic mutation is not a mechanism that can add new genetic information to a genome.

“I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” -Dr. Spetner

Scientific theories require repeated experiment and observation. Sounds like you are talking about a hypothesis.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it isn't. You are just making another mistaken assumption. I still see the individual as "choosing" between "good" and "evil". I was merely pointing out that different experiences dependent, largely, on social environments. Even today, Eastern morality different in many ways from Western morality. These are objective realities that, undoubtedly, play a role in every individual's subjective opinion on what is "good" and "evil". That being said, the choice is still made by the individual. Don't you agree? If not, why not? Why do you think that objective realities don't impact our subjective opinions at all?

Of course you see the individual as choosing between good and evil, because you define choosing as sorting out the optimal results using the facts of what is good and evil as sorting criteria.

But it is already evidenced beyond doubt that you regard good and evil as fact, so that observation was entirely superfluous.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Btw, not established. It's still just your opinion because you haven't provided any of my comments that support it. Just a baseless claim at this point.

Totally ridiculous. From your denial of freedom for the entire universe except in brains, your reference to subjectivity as based on objective differences between people and their environment, your explicit denial of creationism, your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival, your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity, your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact, etc. etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course you see the individual as choosing between good and evil, because you define choosing as sorting out the optimal results using the facts of what is good and evil as sorting criteria.

But it is already evidenced beyond doubt that you regard good and evil as fact, so that observation was entirely superfluous.

No, silly. I already told you. You are just making a plethora of incorrect assumptions and putting words in my mouth. It was made obvious, not just to me, but everyone on this forum by your inability to quote my (imagined) comments where I made any claim that I believe "good" and "evil" to be fact.

But, to this specific incorrect assumption,

Of course you see the individual as choosing between good and evil, because you define choosing as sorting out the optimal results using the facts of what is good and evil as sorting criteria.

But it is already evidenced beyond doubt that you regard good and evil as fact, so that observation was entirely superfluous.

I don't believe that "good" and "evil" are factual objectively. You haven't even provided any evidence suggesting that I do. You have just spewed blatant lies, claiming that I said something in an earlier comment. Then, when I ask you to provide the comment, you are not willing. Isn't lying against the tenants of Islam? Don't you feel bad about being so dishonest?

 

[leibowde84]

Totally ridiculous. From your denial of freedom for the entire universe except in brains, your reference to subjectivity as related as based on objective differences between people and their environment, your explicit denial of creationism, your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival, your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity, your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact, etc. etc.

You haven't provided any explanation as to what you mean by inanimate objects "choosing". I've asked several times for an example of this, and you have failed to provide it. Thus, I am assuming that you are just making this stuff up as you go along.

Also, still waiting for any comments from me that demonstrate your dishonest claims to be true. I'll take that as a win, unless you can provide some. Shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Totally ridiculous. From your denial of freedom for the entire universe except in brains, your reference to subjectivity as related as based on objective differences between people and their environment, your explicit denial of creationism, your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival, your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity, your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact, etc. etc.

Are we even speaking the same language anymore?
How can you be so obviously wrong...
How baffaling.

 

[leibowde84]

Totally ridiculous. From your denial of freedom for the entire universe except in brains, your reference to subjectivity as based on objective differences between people and their environment, your explicit denial of creationism, your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival, your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity, your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact, etc. etc.

1. "your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival". (never claimed this ... if you disagree, please provide the comment)
2. "Your explicit denial of creationism". (this one should be easy to come up with, as you said I "explicitly" said it ... so, provide the comment or accept that you were being dishonest)
3. "Your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity". (You haven't cited anyone's comments where they reject subjectivity and I haven't seen any myself, so this is yet another lie ... or just provide the comment and you win)
4. "Your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact". (Never claimed this, so, again, unless you can provide the comment, I would suggest not lying)

Do you really not feel any shame being so dishonest?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You haven't provided any explanation as to what you mean by inanimate objects "choosing". I've asked several times for an example of this, and you have failed to provide it. Thus, I am assuming that you are just making this stuff up as you go along.

Also, still waiting for any comments from me that demonstrate your dishonest claims to be true. I'll take that as a win, unless you can provide some. Shouldn't be too difficult.

You are delusional you just said choosing between good and evil. You put good and evil in the chosen category, the creation category, the fact category. Goodness and evil belong to the spirit doing the choosing, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, that is how good and evil are opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

1. "your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival". (never claimed this ... if you disagree, please provide the comment)
2. "Your explicit denial of creationism". (this one should be easy to come up with, as you said I "explicitly" said it ... so, provide the comment or accept that you were being dishonest)
3. "Your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity". (You haven't cited anyone's comments where they reject subjectivity and I haven't seen any myself, so this is yet another lie ... or just provide the comment and you win)
4. "Your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact". (Never claimed this, so, again, unless you can provide the comment, I would suggest not lying)

Do you really not feel any shame being so dishonest?

I just can't be bothered with reading through your garbage again, memory serves me well enough.

 

[Deathbydefault]

1. "your ideas about morality in terms of what enhances survival". (never claimed this ... if you disagree, please provide the comment)
2. "Your explicit denial of creationism". (this one should be easy to come up with, as you said I "explicitly" said it ... so, provide the comment or accept that you were being dishonest)
3. "Your open agreement with people who reject subjectivity". (You haven't cited anyone's comments where they reject subjectivity and I haven't seen any myself, so this is yet another lie ... or just provide the comment and you win)
4. "Your mentioning that you regard some issues of good and evil as fact". (Never claimed this, so, again, unless you can provide the comment, I would suggest not lying)

Do you really not feel any shame being so dishonest?

Do bigots feel shame with what they say?
I feel as though it's a genetic defect of some sort.
We should do some research on this, might make some money.. lol..

Also I think he has me on ignore but he can see my comments if you quote them, hehe.
So I'll just sidewind here and try not to lose brain cells as I read.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are we even speaking the same language anymore?
How can you be so obviously wrong...
How baffaling.

Again, your diagnosed mental condition basically says that you reject subjectivity.