Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

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

Here let me explain this in a way you can understand...
No.

And it isn't a official diagnosis, APD can only be diagnosed and "treated" when I'm 18.
So I may end up in a facility in a month.
What my "condition" does not grant me is the ability to reject subjectivity.

The only way a human being could possibly not be subjective is if they had no senses.
No emotions.
No hearing, seeing, talking.
No contact of any kind.
Literally a biological robot.

You keep stating this and that as if you actually know something when in reality you don't know jack.
Get over yourself and your absolutely baseless opinions.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Obviously you are wrong about that.

 

[leibowde84]

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

How could a diagnosed mental condition be relevant?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

where did I say that?

 

[David M]

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.

NO. They do not violate the 2nd Law because living things are not isolated systems, and the 2nd Law only applies to ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

The entropy increase in the Sun for the portion of energy that reaches the earth massively outweighs the local decreases in entropy caused by living things (or the formation of snowflakes for that matter). If you want to claim otherwise show us the maths.

Theories are based on laws. If there are no laws to base your theories, how can you even begin to hypothesize?

No, they aren't. Theories explain why laws work in the way that they do. There are laws that relate to evolution.

e.g. Hardy-Weinberg Law, Dollo's Law.

 

[leibowde84]

NO. They do not violate the 2nd Law because living things are not isolated systems, and the 2nd Law only applies to ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

The entropy increase in the Sun for the portion of energy that reaches the earth massively outweighs the local decreases in entropy caused by living things (or the formation of snowflakes for that matter). If you want to claim otherwise show us the maths.

Great comment!! Very true.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No the pope believes the diversity of species is a result of God's choosing.

He just linked you to a place that clearly states the pope believes in evolution.

 

[David M]

The utter inane ignorance of JM2Cs claim motivated me to go and find (again) someone who has done the maths.

Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

And the relevant quote is:

we find that the second law of thermodynamics will only be violated if the entire biomass (of the earth) is somehow converted from a highly disorganized state (say, a gas at 10,000 K) to a highly organized state (say, absolute zero) in about a month or less.

That is the level of "evolution" that would violate the 2nd law, what we observe happening and can see did happen in the past is miniscule in comparative terms when it comes to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[dust1n]

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.

Oh look, mister denier of people's subjectivity is around. Mohammad, when are you going to learn to stop shoving your pointless objectivity and your Objective Qur'an in people's faces because it's contrary to the subjectivity of others.

 

[Shad]

Billions of people. As before, you can read in the wiki on free will the standard religious concept of the soul or spirit doing the choosing. It is not mentioned there explicitly that the existence of the soul is a matter of opinion, but it does mentio that the soul is not evidenced.

And I already told you that 3 times before also ....

Argument ad populum, billions of people believing in something does not make it true. Billions believed in the geocentric model and they were wrong.

There are more Christians then Muslims thus Christianity's concept of God is correct and Islam's is false. Better change your religion as population based arguments are valid in your view. Also those are opinions which you yourself said are not objective fact thus your point has no merit at all. I await your double-standard and fallacious reason to avoid standing by your own standards.

 

[Shad]

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?

No, a theory stands until it is falsified. Verification is outdated as the end point of a theory. So for one to falsify evolution one must produce evidence of spontaneous life generation.

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.

Nope since there are developed natural mechanics explaining both. Evolution does not violate the 2nd law since it only applies to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. Also changes in entropy can be based on a local. Think of a pie. One slice can have an increase with another can have a decrease.

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.

Wrong.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...one_genotype_a_better_competitor_than_another
Evolution of biological complexity

“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

Not a biologist, argument from false authority. The above sources refute this citation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Argument ad populum, billions of people believing in something does not make it true. Billions believed in the geocentric model and they were wrong.

There are more Christians then Muslims thus Christianity's concept of God is correct and Islam's is false. Better change your religion as population based arguments are valid in your view. Also those are opinions which you yourself said are not objective fact thus your point has no merit at all. I await your double-standard and fallacious reason to avoid standing by your own standards.

I think your intelligence has been corrupted by atheism etc.. I already said more than 30 times certainly that in creationism decisions, and their consequences are matters of fact. It is only the agency of a decision which is categorically a matter of opinion.

As with all the others, atheists etc. define choosing as sorting out the best result, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria, and this boosts their ego immensily, to know for a (scientific) fact what is good and evil. And all their argumentation, or actually the lack of any argumentation on their part, are just to protect this ego tripping they have going on.

That explains why after 30 times Shad still doesn't accurately reflect that in creationism the decisions are matters of fact, and the agency of the decisions is a matter opinion.

Creationism is the only practically functioning conceptual scheme on offer about how choosing works. All the criticism of it does not come from any competing conceptual scheme, but rather the arbitrary criticism of it comes from this craving for factual certitude about what is good and evil.

 

[Shad]

I think your intelligence has been corrupted by atheism etc.. I already said more than 30 times certainly that in creationism decisions, and their consequences are matters of fact. It is only the agency of a decision which is categorically a matter of opinion.

Which does not apply to rocks or crystals as none make a decision which is a mind dependent result. Look up the word you are using. Thus you are begging the question by applying a mind dependent word based on agency as a matter of fact.

As with all the others, atheists etc. define choosing as sorting out the best result, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria, and this boosts their ego immensily, to know for a (scientific) fact what is good and evil. And all their argumentation, or actually the lack of any argumentation on their part, are just to protect this ego tripping they have going on.

Natural mechanics do this, this is what you do not understand. Good and evil have nothing to do with this as that is a moral question not one of natural mechanics. Natural mechanics do not involve good nor evil as these are value and judgment choices. You are projecting your views of morality on to this mechanic. Your reply is a strawman since you are not talking about my comment but making it up as you go alone.

That explains why after 30 times Shad still doesn't accurately reflect that in creationism the decisions are matters of fact, and the agency of the decisions is a matter opinion.

You are using the wrong word here which is decision. It is a natural force which produces probability based outcomes. The environment sets the criteria by which an object is subject to. If the environment is not suitable for a certain change in the object then that change has a low probability. A fish developing in a desert with no water is highly implausible thus this is sorted as an unlikely development. A lava stalagmite forming in an environment that lava was not a variable is implausible. That a natural mechanic without intent. With you can hold whatever opinion you want natural mechanics are facts. The agency is the mechanic. The opinion view can be completely disagreed with. I completely understand your argument. I disagree with the terms used and your opinion.

Creationism is the only practically functioning conceptual scheme on offer about how choosing works. All the criticism of it does not come from any competing conceptual scheme, but rather the arbitrary criticism of it, comes from this craving for factual certitude about what is good and evil.

No it is not as natural forces have a model and theory with evidence. Good and evil have nothing to do with crystal formation. Strawman.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I already said more than 30 times certainly that in creationism decisions, and their consequences are matters of fact.

You are asserting objectivity in the face of something subjective. You reject subjectivity with this argument, and you deny how choosing is done and what it is that chooses. Therefor you are now wrong and everyone else is right.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are asserting objectivity in the face of something subjective. You reject subjectivity with this argument, and you deny how choosing is done and what it is that chooses. Therefor you are now wrong and everyone else is right.

That's whatever, the fact is that you all do reject subjectivity altogether.

And you all deny freedom is real also. Shad now tries to acknowledge freedom is real, to try to have some credibility, but he cannot pinpoint the actual event of making a possible future the present or not. This is because he refuses to use the word decision for it. So now he says that freedom is real, but freedom is unrelated to choosing, in stead he says that freedom means that it is "dictated" by "natural mechanics". That is his actual argumentation, no kidding.

 

[leibowde84]

vague, ill-defined, something else is better....

Nope. Just a better definition is required. That's all. You are just using your own made-up meaning for the word "vague". A term can be changed from vague to well-defined. Happens all the time.

 

[leibowde84]

It is not really very impressive for a few atheists, materialists, evolutionists to refer to the authority of a dictionary. You all got nothing. No conceptual scheme like creationism where objectivity and subjectivity is all integrated and practically useful and distinguished from each other in 2 categories. You all write nonsense in denial of the plain fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and rejecting the validity of subjectivity.

But, all you do is explain your position repeatedly. You don't substantiate it with any evidence. That isn't an argument, it is just expressing your opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

You are asserting objectivity in the face of something subjective. You reject subjectivity with this argument, and you deny how choosing is done and what it is that chooses. Therefor you are now wrong and everyone else is right.

We did it!!

 

[leibowde84]

That's whatever, the fact is that you all do reject subjectivity altogether.

And you all deny freedom is real also. Shad now tries to acknowledge freedom is real, to try to have some credibility, but he cannot pinpoint the actual event of making a possible future the present or not. This is because he refuses to use the word decision for it. So now he says that freedom is real, but freedom is unrelated to choosing, in stead he says that freedom means that it is "dictated" by "natural mechanics". That is his actual argumentation, no kidding.

These are just accusations, not a coherent argument. An "accusation" is when you claim something about someone without providing any supporting evidence. In this case, it would require you to cite his comments where he said these things. For good reason, no one on this forum is going to "take your word for anything", as you have repeatedly been dishonest in the past. So, put up or shut up. Show us the comments where we make these claims that you repeatedly accuse us of.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I've begun to run out of cleverly constructed insults, so all I can do is watch.
Pretty entertaining show you've got going on though, bravo.