Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

It seems amazing to me that for every good thing that scientists come up with, there are many more things that ruin life on this planet.

This statement alone is proof of your complete and total ignorance of the real world. If you took just a cursory glance around your immediate environment, you would be able to see a multitude of ways in which science has enriched your life - and the lives of everyone else on the planet - clearly and demonstrably in ways that your beliefs cannot hope to accomplish. Science is responsible for medicine that saves countless lives every day, agriculture which feeds literally billions of people, and technology which you most certainly take for granted every day, and you honestly think that science does more harm than good?

You have demonstrated time and time again that you do not understand the theory of evolution. I have explained to you the flaws and misapprehensions in your arguments on multiple occasions, and yet you continue to state them over and over. You are displaying a severe lack of capacity to learn anything about this subject beyond what your religious texts tell you, and this statement above shows why. You aren't trying to learn: you're actively trying to ignore. You are blinding yourself because your beliefs are more precious to you than reality.

 

[McBell]

If you had read my posts here you would see that I have not altered my stance. Macro-evolution is NOT a fact.
I will never believe that it is, any more than I could accept that the earth itself is not designed to support life.

And thus you will never be anything more than a play toy for those who are bored enough to rattle your chain.
Sad that you have no intentions of learning any thing outside your well protected little box.

perhaps one day WatchTower will give you a new song and dance to perform...

 

[McBell]

Are you not capable of being anything but a sniper on the sidelines Mestemia? Have you got anything intelligent to add...or is this all you can do?

Do you have anything other than the same old already thoroughly refuted WatchTower song and dance performances?

At least I am not being blatantly dishonest with my posts....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Evolution is based on belief too...no real evidence.

There's tons of evidence, but I don't think you want to hear about it. Perhaps you are just too attached to your religious beliefs.

 

[JayJayDee]

This statement alone is proof of your complete and total ignorance of the real world. If you took just a cursory glance around your immediate environment, you would be able to see a multitude of ways in which science has enriched your life - and the lives of everyone else on the planet - clearly and demonstrably in ways that your beliefs cannot hope to accomplish. Science is responsible for medicine that saves countless lives every day, agriculture which feeds literally billions of people, and technology which you most certainly take for granted every day, and you honestly think that science does more harm than good?

Based on what I have already posted, there is clear evidence that science has contributed much to the misery and suffering experienced by many people, in many nations. For everything they have produced, the planet and its inhabitants have paid for it in some way.

Pollution is the result of man's mismanagement of this earth. She is heaving under the strain of what science has done in the name of progress. Do you see what corporations such as Monsanto have done to farming and agriculture?

Pesticide resistant plants have been genetically engineered so that poison sprayed on weeds all around them will not kill these plants....but they might kill the people that eat them. Seeds that grow crops won't produce seed for next years crop unless you buy it from the big boys. Great use of science there.

Have you seen the way food is produced these days in order to facilitate our current lifestyle? Living creatures are fed foods that they would never normally eat and killed en masse to supply supermarkets with meat.
Pigs and Poultry are kept in cramped, artificial environments and fed hormones to make them grow faster. Some are so grossly distorted that they can't even stand on their feet. Science did that.

In the supermarkets they sacrifice nutrition for shelf life. To ensure that things last longer, they kill every living organism in them so that it will not spoil. We are designed to eat living food. Our whole digestive system is bacterially operated. Nothing in our food supply is fresh and its nutritional value is poor. Even in affluent countries, this amounts to malnourishment. Science has contributed to all of that....so don't blow the trumpet too hard, will ya?

You have demonstrated time and time again that you do not understand the theory of evolution.

I understand what science claims about how evolution took place. I have yet to see any "proof" that does not contain supposition and educated guessing masquerading as established fact.

I have explained to you the flaws and misapprehensions in your arguments on multiple occasions, and yet you continue to state them over and over. You are displaying a severe lack of capacity to learn anything about this subject beyond what your religious texts tell you, and this statement above shows why. You aren't trying to learn: you're actively trying to ignore. You are blinding yourself because your beliefs are more precious to you than reality.

I could say the same of you. Your beliefs are more precious to you than the reality that is right under your nose.
The reality is created. But you don't want to see it.

 

[JayJayDee]

There's tons of evidence, but I don't think you want to hear about it. Perhaps you are just too attached to your religious beliefs.

Or the scientists are just as attached to theirs? I haven't seen any real evidence yet. There has been lots posted but it doesn't take much to undo it....not very convincing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The reality is created. But you don't want to see it.

That's a religious belief and not something the evidence supports. If you can't set aside your religious beliefs then there is no way you'll be able to look objectively at what is there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Or the scientists are just as attached to theirs? I haven't seen any real evidence yet. There has been lots posted but it doesn't take much to undo it....not very convincing.

What might help you is to do some independent research on the principles of evolution.

 

[JayJayDee]

What might help you is to do some independent research on the principles of evolution.

LOL...what makes you think I need help?

 

[FearGod]

I believe that they are programmed. God said that he finished his creative work, so he doesn't directly intervene in what he has already finished.

When I moved from the city to the mountains, my dogs grew extra fur on their bellies within a couple of years. They didn't will this to happen, it was just the natural response of their bodies to combat the cold.

Yes exactly it's already programmed to adapt to the environment without God's interference but when it comes to a new kind then a specific design is required by God's interference such as the creation of Adam.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes exactly it's already programmed to adapt to the environment without God's interference but when it comes to a new kind then a specific design is required by God's interference such as the creation of Adam.

That is just about doing as much to avoid doing science about how things are chosen in the universe, as evolutionists are avoiding it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Punctuated Equilibria

Its from a talkorigins article, as usual for quote mines the full text has the opposite meaning the what the creationist wants it to mean,

Pretty much what I thought. Thanks.

 

[philbo]

Fair enough - although I would argue that Piltdown Man was quickly discovered to be a fake and removed from what we could today consider to the the body of evidence.

The Piltdown Man hoax lasted 40 years before being dicovered as a fake - and although nobody would seriously argue that it is part of the body of evidence for evolution, there have been a lot of creationists over the years who have implied that because this was a fake, none of the other evidence can be believed to be true. It's a bit like the climate change deniers who seem to think that because some emails quoted out of context suggest that a tiny fraction of the data was being manipulated, therefore none of the evidence for changing temperatures is reliable

 

[philbo]

Do you see what corporations such as Monsanto have done to farming and agriculture?

Oddly enough, they've helped feed millions who would otherwise have starved

Pesticide resistant plants have been genetically engineered so that poison sprayed on weeds all around them will not kill these plants....but they might kill the people that eat them.

Glyphosate is the world's most widely-used weedkiller: if it had any measureable effect on the people who eat plants sprayed with it, we'd all be dead by now. There are no studies out there which show glyphosate as harmful in the sorts of quantities people consume it - sure, some people with an agenda have caused rats to die by making them drink the stuff neat, and idiots on Facebook post these as "Oh, no! teh evul Monsatan is trying to kil us al".

Seeds that grow crops won't produce seed for next years crop unless you buy it from the big boys. Great use of science there.

Farmers are not forced to buy these seeds - but they do, knowing that they will get a better yield, feed more people & make more money. So, yes, it is a great use of science

I understand what science claims about how evolution took place. I have yet to see any "proof" that does not contain supposition and educated guessing masquerading as established fact.

That you have yet to see it is more about your inability to see than the lack of existence of evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Was the information in and of itself correct...regardless of the source? You are trying to destroy the credibility of what was said by who said it.....this is a common ploy used by evolutionists to cancel out any conflicting "scientific" evidence that might paint their findings in a bad light. Call the source into question in order to destroy their credibility, regardless of the accuracy of their statements......Nice try.

I actually wasn't trying to destroy the credibility. I was trying to get it in the correct context. After having found the correct context yes it is true but it is not an argument against evolution and it is not always true.

I notice too that no one has addressed the negative aspects of their beloved science as contributing to most of the world's problems. Chemical pollution of the soil, air and water....artificial fertilisers and pesticides leaching into the biologically dead soils used to produce our food.....heinous weapons used to kill humans in events of mass destruction.....biological weapons......medical interventions that cause side effects worse than the disease it's treating, exacerbating many illnesses and fixing very little. Anything that looks like it might solve the problems of the 21st century are shelved and lost because profits are put before everything else.

Because that all has to do with what humans do. Prior to science humans have done terrible terrible things. And today humans still do terrible terrible things. We just have better tools to do it on a mass and more effective scale. But the world as it is is currently far better than it ever was for the average person than in the ancient world. It wasn't some paradise. It was a hell all its own. So I don't regret the advancement of science. Not even the slightest bit.

Engines have been designed that run beautifully with no fossil fuels, so technically we should have eliminated the pollution caused by automobiles decades ago, but there is no money for the oil companies in that, is there?

Electricity powered by solar panels should be providing all the energy we need, without the need of coal fired power stations or equally polluting and dangerous nuclear plants.....but the cost of installing stand alone electricity supply for our own homes is prohibitive.

We hear about scientific "breakthrough's" that are hailed as a future cure for whatever, only to disappear...never be seen or heard about again.

All of this...litterally all of it, has been caused by companies and corporations protecting their profit by using religion as a political tool and the religious right ate it up and destroyed any chance of having better methods of producing energy. Slowly it is getting better. Though I still haven't seen any movement against climate change other than ones motivated by religious reasons.

The legacy of science is not the wonderful achievement that most supporters claim. It hard to ignore the negative side of science when we are the victims of it in some way, every day.
Science can be a destroyer as well as a builder of anything good. Evolution has sought to destroy the inherent spirituality in man. But I guess this seems like a good thing to many......trouble is, it hasn't produced a better world...has it?

I would argue it has produced a significantly better world. It has produced far better results than religion ever has. The last twenty years of science has made more progress in bettering the world then all of the religions of all the world of all time combined.

Science is all that mankind has really ever achieved. Science is merely the systematic search for understanding of the world around us.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would argue it has produced a significantly better world. It has produced far better results than religion ever has. The last twenty years of science has made more progress in bettering the world then all of the religions of all the world of all time combined.

Science is all that mankind has really ever achieved. Science is merely the systematic search for understanding of the world around us.

Of course the religious scientists would rather have shoved the entire science endavour into a pit, than have science be taken over by nerds who have no idea whatsoevery of subjectivity, who use science to compete against religion.

And people have gotten more ignorant about how things are chosen in the universe due to science, because of atheism in science. Knowledge in this area is significantly decreasing.

As Peter Rowlands says, we are inclined towards a naive realism about the way the world works. We interpret things in terms of what is familiar to us, what is concrete, practical, and convenient. But science is really about mathematics, about abstraction.

Creationism is the right foundation of science. It is because creationism enables people to distinghuish fact from opinion, thus they can avoid being stuck with naive realism, where opinion and fact are in a mess together.

How Newton in his time could engage in such highly abstract ideas as he did, is because he could distinguish the spiritual from the material. He could let the light of the spiritual domain shine on the material domain, thereby making it clear how the material world works. Newton had an emotional life within his scientific pursuit peculiar only to himself, and it is this spirit carefully cherished which enabled him to make the findings as he did. So he would say in disgust that the relative notion of time is a "vulgar" approximation of time, and that real time is absolute. It is having feelings about these sorts of things, that makes for a good scientist, and it cannot be achieved without having a conscious effort to cherish the spirit which chooses the way the material domain turns out.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course the religious scientists would rather have shoved the entire science endavour into a pit, than have science be taken over by nerds who have no idea whatsoevery of subjectivity, who use science to compete against religion.

And people have gotten more ignorant about how things are chosen in the universe due to science, because of atheism in science. Knowledge in this area is significantly decreasing.

As Peter Rowlands says, we are inclined towards a naive realism about the way the world works. We interpret things in terms of what is familiar to us, what is concrete, practical, and convenient. But science is really about mathematics, about abstraction.

Creationism is the right foundation of science. It is because creationism enables people to distinghuish fact from opinion, thus they can avoid being stuck with naive realism, where opinion and fact are in a mess together.

How Newton in his time could engage in such highly abstract ideas as he did, is because he could distinguish the spiritual from the material. He could let the light of the spiritual domain shine on the material domain, thereby making it clear how the material world works. Newton had an emotional life within his scientific pursuit peculiar only to himself, and it is this spirit carefully cherished which enabled him to make the findings as he did. So he would say in disgust that the relative notion of time is a "vulgar" approximation of time, and that real time is absolute. It is having feelings about these sorts of things, that makes for a good scientist, and it cannot be achieved without having a conscious effort to cherish the spirit which chooses the way the material domain turns out.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Based on what I have already posted, there is clear evidence that science has contributed much to the misery and suffering experienced by many people, in many nations. For everything they have produced, the planet and its inhabitants have paid for it in some way.

Except for all that science has done to help the environment and provide benefits for the planet's inhabitants. Is science responsible for harm? Of course it is. But the statement that it has done more harm than good, as you have indicated, it childishly absurd. For every single negative you can name (those that cannot be refuted), I can name you dozens of actual, tangible benefits science has given mankind.

Pollution is the result of man's mismanagement of this earth. She is heaving under the strain of what science has done in the name of progress. Do you see what corporations such as Monsanto have done to farming and agriculture?

Corporate greed isn't science.

Pesticide resistant plants have been genetically engineered so that poison sprayed on weeds all around them will not kill these plants....but they might kill the people that eat them.

You do realize that plants naturally produce pesticides, right? The vast majority of plants we eat today have been genetically modified to actually make them LESS harmful for mass human consumption.

Seeds that grow crops won't produce seed for next years crop unless you buy it from the big boys. Great use of science there.

Once again, you're talking about corporate greed and corrupt business practices. What does that have to do with science?

Have you seen the way food is produced these days in order to facilitate our current lifestyle? Living creatures are fed foods that they would never normally eat and killed en masse to supply supermarkets with meat.

Second verse, same as the first.

Also, what methodology do you propose is being utilized in order to make farming methods more efficient, less costly and less inhumane? Could it be... Science?

Pigs and Poultry are kept in cramped, artificial environments and fed hormones to make them grow faster. Some are so grossly distorted that they can't even stand on their feet. Science did that.

No, corporate greed did that.

Also, if you don't mind the pun, I find your examples ridiculously paltry in comparison to things I've mentioned. It's like I've shown you the Mona Lisa at the Louvre and all you're interested in doing is complaining about the price of post cards in the gift shop.

In the supermarkets they sacrifice nutrition for shelf life.

Wrong, see above. Food nowadays has been genetically modified to provide increased nutritional value.

To ensure that things last longer, they kill every living organism in them so that it will not spoil. We are designed to eat living food. Our whole digestive system is bacterially operated. Nothing in our food supply is fresh and its nutritional value is poor.

You seem extremely confused and uninformed about both nutrition and biology.

Even in affluent countries, this amounts to malnourishment. Science has contributed to all of that....so don't blow the trumpet too hard, will ya?

Again, you're muttering about the lack of mobile reception while standing on the surface of the moon. It's hilarious.

I understand what science claims about how evolution took place. I have yet to see any "proof" that does not contain supposition and educated guessing masquerading as established fact.

Only because you don't understand what evidence is, apparently. The very fact that you keep using the word "proof" is a clear demonstration of that. Once you get rid of this childish notion that "proof" exists in science, and accept the fact that science's conclusions are ALWAYS tentative, and conclusions must be drawn through inference and investigation - and that this method is actually reliable - you cannot hope to claim to have any grasp of this subject substantial enough to warrant this kind of attitude. As it is, you do not understand science, so you are in no position to judge its conclusions. You can disbelieve them if you like, but do not make such ridiculous claims that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy, or that you know better than the entire population of the world's biologists.

I could say the same of you.

You could, but you would be wrong. I'm willing to change my mind about anything, provided I am given a good, rational reason to. I don't HAVE to believe evolution, but I do because all of the evidence makes the theory credible. Nevertheless, if that evidence were contradicted somehow, I would be open to the possibility of accepting evolution as false.

The question is, can you say the same? What evidence (or "proof", if you like) could we possibly present that would cause you to seriously consider the possibility that evolution is correct.

Your beliefs are more precious to you than the reality that is right under your nose.
The reality is created. But you don't want to see it.

Wrong. Try again.

 

[outhouse]

Agreed, and its sad that it needed repeating.

 

[dust1n]

Based on what I have already posted, there is clear evidence that science has contributed much to the misery and suffering experienced by many people, in many nations. For everything they have produced, the planet and its inhabitants have paid for it in some way.

Unlike Christianity...

Pollution is the result of man's mismanagement of this earth. She is heaving under the strain of what science has done in the name of progress. Do you see what corporations such as Monsanto have done to farming and agriculture?

Pesticide resistant plants have been genetically engineered so that poison sprayed on weeds all around them will not kill these plants....but they might kill the people that eat them. Seeds that grow crops won't produce seed for next years crop unless you buy it from the big boys. Great use of science there.

Have you seen the way food is produced these days in order to facilitate our current lifestyle? Living creatures are fed foods that they would never normally eat and killed en masse to supply supermarkets with meat.
Pigs and Poultry are kept in cramped, artificial environments and fed hormones to make them grow faster. Some are so grossly distorted that they can't even stand on their feet. Science did that.

In the supermarkets they sacrifice nutrition for shelf life. To ensure that things last longer, they kill every living organism in them so that it will not spoil. We are designed to eat living food. Our whole digestive system is bacterially operated. Nothing in our food supply is fresh and its nutritional value is poor. Even in affluent countries, this amounts to malnourishment. Science has contributed to all of that....so don't blow the trumpet too hard, will ya?


I understand what science claims about how evolution took place. I have yet to see any "proof" that does not contain supposition and educated guessing masquerading as established fact.


I could say the same of you. Your beliefs are more precious to you than the reality that is right under your nose.
The reality is created. But you don't want to see it.

Science has been effective at being an evil blight upon the world, according to you, but when it comes to evolution it's incompetent and completely wrong?