Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Midnight Rain]

What do you care that you have no emotions according to creationism since you consider creationism wrong.

So according to a philosophy that he doesn't believe in he should just stop caring since he doesn't have emotions? lol.

Everyone has emotions. Everyone. If you reject creationism it doesn't change that fact. If it is a necessity of creationism that those that don't accept it don't have emotions then we have definitive evidence that it is wrong.

 

[gnostic]

There is 1 whole category for fact in creationism.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that FACT required "evidences" as a mean of verifying something is true or refute something.

Everything about "fact" comes down to being "verifiable".

You can't in any way prove or test that a god - or creator - to be true. Something that's not possible to "test", cannot be "verified" to be true.

Creationism is untestable, because your belief in your own god cannot be tested or verified. Without evidences it (any belief) is not a fact; without evidences it just meaningless and biased wishful thinking.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So according to a philosophy that he doesn't believe in he should just stop caring since he doesn't have emotions? lol.

Everyone has emotions. Everyone. If you reject creationism it doesn't change that fact. If it is a necessity of creationism that those that don't accept it don't have emotions then we have definitive evidence that it is wrong.

What he argued was that some muslim chooses with his heart and this lead him to rape a child to death, and therefore choosing with your heart is wrong and it should be held as fact what is good and evil.

He calculates saying to be angry at that muslim based on the fact that life is good and the muslim destroyed life. That is acting like a robot, in a forced way, and emotions require freedom, therefore he has no emotions, according to creationism.

And I am quite sure it is more true than not. The only thing he and evolutionists generally do at the forums is destroy perfectly valid subjective beliefs in the soul and God for the sole reason that it is not objective. Again, and agsin, and again, it is systematic intellectual rejection of subjectivity altogether. That does not provide for any emotional life.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You don't seem to be able to grasp that FACT required "evidences" as a mean of verifying something is true or refute something.

Everything about "fact" comes down to being "verifiable".

You can't in any way prove or test that a god - or creator - to be true. Something that's not possible to "test", cannot be "verified" to be true.

Creationism is untestable, because your belief in your own god cannot be tested or verified. Without evidences it (any belief) is not a fact; without evidences it just meaningless and biased wishful thinking.

See. The existence of God is only ever proposed as opinion in creationism. Yet this evolutionist requires it to be a factual issue. It is rejection of subjectivity altogether.

 

[Shad]

.....you first said that procesesses in the universe can turn out different ways, that freedom is real

Yes. Such as different types of crystals form due to different variables. Or that life like fish forms in water rather than a waterless desert.

.....then you said that "outcome" = for a possible future to become the present or not

Yes. As in a crystal could form in a different way than the crystals surrounding it. Say there is a cave which only a portion of has experienced lava flow. Stalagmites can form in lava tubes while other type can form which are separate from these tubes. Thus one can have both types in the same portion of the cave which had the tubes. While the portion that had no tubes will not have lava dependent stalagmites.

.....and then you said that everything in the universe is forced (by environment, characteristics of the object etc.)

Nope I said non-sentient objects are forced by their nature and environment, I never said all. Strawman

Which means of course, you also deny people have freedom. You are not going to say the eletrochemistry in the brain etc. can turn out several different ways, when you say all the electrons and whatever in the universe cannot turn out several different ways, but that they are forced by environment and characteristics of the object.

Non-sequitur based on a strawman thus illogical and invalid. I clearly defined a difference between sentient life and non-sentient objects. Try again son, less lying this time

You deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

These 2 always come together. Just like with nazism, they regard human behaviour as predetermined by genetics (deny freedom), and the regard worth of people as fact (reject subjectivity).

Non-sequitur based on a lie and strawman. Subjectivity applies to objects with a mind not those without a mind. Considering you ignored the clear distinction I have made between objects with and without a mind you conclusion is fallacious thus invalid and unsound, remember that word logic you attempt to use.

I apply restricted freedom to objects which have no freedom of action nor thought. I apply free will thus freedom to those objects that have a mind. You conflate these two groups as the same thus your argument is a fallacious of conflation

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes. Such as different types of crystals form due to different variables.

That is not freedom. That is variable X forcing result A, and variable Y forcing result B.

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

 

[Shad]

That is not freedom. That is variable X forcing result A, and variable Y forcing result B.

It is restricted freedom

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

Hilarious to say the least. After all I am not the one conflating non-sentient entities with sentient entities based on argument by assertion. Try again son.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is restricted freedom

It is demonstrably no freedom at all. It cannot turn out any other way given the initial parameters.

You deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

 

[gnostic]

The existence of God is only ever proposed as opinion in creationism.

You are contradicting yourself, Mohammad.

In one post, you claim that creationism and god are fact:

There is 1 whole category for fact in creationism.

But now you are saying god and creationism are not fact, but opinion:

The existence of God is only ever proposed as opinion in creationism.

You should make up your mind, Mohammad. It is either factual or just opinion. You two contradicting posts, demonstrated that you don't know what you talking about. Surely, you should understand why other posters here, think your posts are often incoherent. Not only you make wild claims, as well as twisting people's words, you often contradict yourself.

Opinions are not good when it come to finding about what is true in reality. The only way to get fact from reality is through evidences, not by opinion.

Creationism is not real, because there are no evidences to support creationism or its god. There are also no evidences to support the existence of your god, so god's existence is not fact, which mean god isn't real.

You keep talking about subjectivity, but subjectivity is not great way to measure reality. Subjectivity is great for art, but not for science. And opinions can be often wrong, especially with no evidences to support any claim.

And you have no evidences, no fact, and you are often incoherent and contradictory, which mean you are unreliable. You are also unreliable because you don't have the honesty to tell the truth.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are contradicting yourself, Mohammad.

In one post, you claim that creationism and god are fact:

But now you are saying god and creationism are not fact, but opinion:

The explanation is that you are an evolutionist, so you have the intelligence of less than a 5 year old on issues about how choosing works.

I have already said more than 30 times that creationism is divided into categories of creator and creation. The creator category is the opinion category, and the creation category is the fact category. God obviously belongs to the creator category, so the existence of God is a matter of opinion.

And it is not kidding that I have said this more than 30 times. Which means the minds of evolutionists are corrupt. They rely on regarding good and evil as fact to feed their ego, conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result using the facts of good and evil as sorting criteria, and they have cognitive dissonance in regards to anything which shows that this is not valid.

 

[JM2C]

The Earth is not a closed system. Entropy can be localized thus your point no longer has merit.

Explain localized entropy

Also entropy is an unproven theory thus you are using an argument which has no evidence and can be dismissed.

The 2nd LoT is one of the basic principle of nature like the Law of Gravity. The 2nd LoT cannot be understood without Entropy. George Carlin understood entropy very well, you should watch him.

 

[JM2C]

Non-sequitor thus irrelevant and fallacious.

Or maybe you did not understand the question..

 

[JM2C]

Nope Eugenics is based on a proven theory as pointed out above

Based on ideology and not on scientific theory.

 

[JM2C]

That is abiogenesis not evolution, your point is wrong

Bait and switch or are you confused again. When you talk about Darwin’s evolution you are talking about abiogenesis and macroevolution and not microevolution.

 

[JM2C]

Eugenics is selective breeding applied to humans. Both are theories, one is used by livestock farmers. You point is wrong.

Farmers? What farmers are you talking about?

 

[JM2C]

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

No, not really. In an isolated system entropy goes into equilibrium meaning; no energy entering or leaving the system, no chaos, no disorder, no friction, no entropy or IOW, THE END OF EVERYTHING. Earth is not in an isolated system. The energy from the sun gives life and at the same time it causes chaos and disorder [increase in entropy] or IOW, Nothing last forever or DEATH therefore, the 2nd LoT applies to earth.

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).

I don’t understand this. You said: “the 2nd Law only applies to ISOLATED SYSTEMS.” But here you are trying to justify the ToE with snowflakes as a result of order and complex or decrease in entropy IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. Snowflakes at the end of its journey, i.e., caused by the increasing entropy cannot go further toward higher order and complex, can it? IOW, Snowflakes are consistent with the 2nd LoT and Entropy; it dies like everything else and goes back to an unrecognizable mass.

If you want to claim otherwise show us the maths.

Please stop pretending like you know the math, ‘cause if you do, then you would have done it long time ago. When you start doing the math then you’re the man and I will argue no more. We are just simple laymen here, aren’t we?

 

[gnostic]

Creationism and creation are a matter of belief, Mohammad, not facts.

Belief and faith are subjectivity, just like opinion.

In order for creationism to have fact, it required EVIDENCES. And there are no facts in creationism. And you can't have creationism without gods, so that also make creation a belief or an opinion.

Gee, you are so stubbornly ignorant.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Creationism and creation are a matter of belief, Mohammad, not facts.

Belief and faith are subjectivity, just like opinion.

In order for creationism to have fact, it required EVIDENCES. And there are no facts in creationism. And you can't have creationism without gods, so that also make creation a belief or an opinion.

Gee, you are so stubbornly ignorant.

There are facts in creationism, the creation category are all facts. The evidence for creationism is that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and that the universe as a whole is created as well. And there is lots and lots of evidence for simple and sophisticated ways of choosing occurring in the universe.

It is just a matter of physics that there can be no agency detected for any decision whatsoever. The mathematics describing how choosing works simply works without referring to who or what made any decision turn out the way it did. This is the line between fact and opinion. And if you cross that line, by asserting facts about the agency of a decision, then you are engaging in pseudoscience. Like for instance social darwinism, phrenology (asserting as fact the emotional disposition by skull measuring), physiognomie (asserting as fact emotional disposition by measuring the face). Phrenology and physiognomie have already been discarded as pseudoscience, although now evolutionists are trying them again. Currently many disciplines in neurology are pseudoscience (asserting as fact what emotional disposition people have by measuring brainactivity with a brainscanner).

Basically all evolutionists are pseudoscientists of this sort, that they pretend to know as scientific fact what or who it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does. Answers about who or what the agency of a decision is can only be arrived at by choosing the answer. This is how "the painting is beautiful" is an equally valid answer as "the painting is ugly". It is because the love for the way it looks refers to agency of a decision. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion, one chooses the conclusion that it is there, one believes it.

 

[JM2C]

Spetner is biophysicist but is still not a biologist, it a cross field between the two. Thus he uses information from both fields, he does not produce it. His degrees are in physics not biology.

Louis Dollo, full names help a lot you know, was refuted in 2009 by Michael Whiting as was Dollo's law

Dollo's law | biology | Britannica.com


The Hardy-Weinberg Law is strictly applied mathematics, they are not making comments outside of their field. I would point out that the equation is a hypothetical model using assumptions which do not exists in reality. It is used as a control group for a comparison to the evidence we find. It is actually a counter-position that evolutionary influences thus evolution are are false; natural selection, mutations, etc. Evidence for these influences is used to repeatedly falsify the control group which is this law. The law itself is the embodiment of views that do not accept any evolutionary influences.


If you are going to name drop at least read their work. Depending on your views against evolution you may be using one of the assumptions of the Hardy-Weinberg Law which are repeatedly falsified. You cited a control group but seemed not to understand it's purpose/

.

You should point your commentary to the person who introduced the Hardy-Weinberg Law. All I was saying is, Dr. Lee Spetner in more knowledgeable than any of these guys as far as studying mutation at the molecular level.

 

[Parsimony]

When you talk about Darwin’s evolution you are talking about abiogenesis and macroevolution and not microevolution.

You have been told multiple times that this is untrue. Darwinian evolution is about the way that populations of living things change over time, not how living things came into existence in the first place. That would be like saying a theory which explains the way that a reaction between two chemicals in a beaker changes over time is also about how those two chemicals were synthesized in a lab to begin with. It's nonsense.

Not only is biological evolution not the same thing as abiogenesis, it also cannot be the same. In order for evolution by natural selection to occur, the entities in the system have to have:

1) A genome or other coding language of some kind.
2) The ability for that genome to mutate.
3) The ability for these entities to pass on their mutable genomes by reproducing with differential success.

Basic abiotic chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide, methane, nitrogen, etc. have none of these characteristics. Therefore, abiogenesis does not qualify as a form of biological evolution.

By the way, the theory of evolution is about microevolution just as much as it is about macroevolution.