Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Monk Of Reason]

I am still waiting for people to follow up on their claims that all of the evidence for evolution has been proven false. I don't know if they simply made that up hoping we wouldn't check...or if they really believe it. Either way I am still awaiting that answer.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Seeing that there are 26 pages, I'm sure this has already been explained to you, but I'm bored, so:

Evolution isn't unprovable or unfalsifiable or untestable. It's been tested many, many, many times. That's why it's a scientific theory. Intelligent design is untestable because what are you looking for?

You can just throw out any theory about origins in which freedom is not regarded as real and relevant in the universe. Evolution theory is a non contender to explain origins.

 

[gnostic]

Seeing that there are 26 pages, I'm sure this has already been explained to you, but I'm bored, so:

Evolution isn't unprovable or unfalsifiable or untestable. It's been tested many, many, many times. That's why it's a scientific theory. Intelligent design is untestable because what are you looking for?

Oh., Mo.

Yeah, I got Mohammad Nur Syamsu in the Ignored List. He is the only one in that list.

I just got sick of him claiming that I don't believe in "freedom". I protested a number of times, that I do believe in freedom, but he kept saying - "No, you don't" BS, so I just push the magic button, so I don't ever have to respond to his posts.

Sorry, Jay-Jay. Wrong person. I thinking I inherited my mum's memory problem. Is it contagious?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I see all too often the assumption that if ID is true, the intelligence behind the design is, by default, God, and moreso the assumption that it's one God rather than another.
When considering ID, don't rule out other possibilities of who or what the intelligence might be.

What the agency of a decision is, what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a subjective issue.

That is the root of all subjectivity, there is no subjective issue except for in respect to the agency of a decision.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can just throw out any theory about origins in which freedom is not regarded as real and relevant in the universe. Evolution theory is a non contender to explain origins.

We can throw away any theory that is completely lacking in empirical evidence.

There goes your into the trash heap.

 

[JayJayDee]

I am still waiting for people to follow up on their claims that all of the evidence for evolution has been proven false. I don't know if they simply made that up hoping we wouldn't check...or if they really believe it. Either way I am still awaiting that answer.

There has been a fair bit offered (by way of links etc) by evolutionists on this thread that were exposed as speculation and educated guessing......not as proven fact. Micro-evolution is adaptation and this is what is demonstrated. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution and never will be. One does not " prove" the other.

I have demonstrated this by highlighting the relevant portions of the links offered as "proof", to show that the evidence revealed in the fossil record is open to the interpretation of the scientists who clearly have an agenda to uphold. Biased interpretation leads to pre-conceived conclusions dictating the "facts", not the other way around.

Creation or Intelligent Design proponents can make statements of interpretation as well but neither of us can claim positive proof that we are right. Both camps want to believe that they are right. Neither have proof.

No evolutionist can state categorically that evolution is indisputable. It is very disputable because phrases like "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to conclude that"....are not statements of fact, but are statements of opinion.
Opinion is not fact...it is what someone "thinks" may have happened.

I think the whole of creation exhibits intelligent design and the last time I looked.....design needs a designer. That is what I think. My position is as tenable as yours.

 

[dust1n]

There has been a fair bit offered (by way of links etc) by evolutionists on this thread that were exposed as speculation and educated guessing......not as proven fact. Micro-evolution is adaptation and this is what is demonstrated. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution and never will be. One does not " prove" the other.

That's funny, because on post #393, I provided the entirety of the evolutionary biology class from Yale University, and it didn't seem to garner any response from any creationist. I wish I could say I was surprised.

 

[Skwim]

Oh., Mo.

Yeah, I got Mohammad Nur Syamsu in the Ignored List. He is the only one in that list.

I just got sick of him claiming that I don't believe in "freedom". I protested a number of times, that I do believe in freedom, but he kept saying - "No, you don't" BS, so I just push the magic button, so I don't ever have to respond to his posts.

Sorry, Jay-Jay. Wrong person. I thinking I inherited my mum's memory problem. Is it contagious?

He's on my list as well.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There has been a fair bit offered (by way of links etc) by evolutionists on this thread that were exposed as speculation and educated guessing......not as proven fact. Micro-evolution is adaptation and this is what is demonstrated. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution and never will be. One does not " prove" the other.

I have demonstrated this by highlighting the relevant portions of the links offered as "proof", to show that the evidence revealed in the fossil record is open to the interpretation of the scientists who clearly have an agenda to uphold. Biased interpretation leads to pre-conceived conclusions dictating the "facts", not the other way around.

Creation or Intelligent Design proponents can make statements of interpretation as well but neither of us can claim positive proof that we are right. Both camps want to believe that they are right. Neither have proof.

I would have to see a specific example of a time you have debunked certain things. I have a pretty good idea of what it might be like as often the criteria for creationists is to be able to see it with your own two eyes and it fits the bible but if you give me a post number I will look into it.

Secondly even if something wasn't definitively proven, as there are certain things in evolution that are not, it would not be "proven false" or any of the other things you have claimed about it. It wouldn't' be "debunked" ect. Secondly the concept of a designer is nothing but conjecture minus the slightest bit of evidence. So how you could ever support such an idea and yet scoff at evolution is beyond me.

No evolutionist can state categorically that evolution is indisputable. It is very disputable because phrases like "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to conclude that"....are not statements of fact, but are statements of opinion.
Opinion is not fact...it is what someone "thinks" may have happened.

Now to deal with the bolded portion of your post I have to correct you. This is not language that indicates opinion in the slightest. It indicates good explanatory language in the scientific field. You do not start with a statement of definitive certainty but instead provide the evidence and what the evidence points to. The conclusion that will have far more definitive language in certain papers will be in the final paragraphs.

Examples could be things like; The teeth of animal "X" in the fossil "b" seems to have an inward curve. This indicates a possible function when we also look at the jaw bone and its large joint hinge that could allow for a larger bite range than the jaw found in fossil "c". .. .. skip a few paragraphs.... In conclusion the evidence follows that Fossil "B" is in fact a distinctly different animal, (being animal X) than the similar but different known animal "Y" which can be found in fossil "C". The jaw bone along with its teeth indicate that its function would have been used to consume larger and tougher materials as well as have the ability to shred through flesh.

Or something of that nature. When you read scientific papers you will see that no matter how conclusive or well established the evidence is they will still use language that is open ended for the sake of discussion and it makes sure that they aren't simply speaking from a point of authority.

I think the whole of creation exhibits intelligent design and the last time I looked.....design needs a designer. That is what I think. My position is as tenable as yours.

THIS is what opinion looks like. Linking a piece of evidence to an explanation with an open ended verbiage is not simply opinion.

I think airplane food is terrible - opinion
The quality of food in the airplanes may not be as good as the average quality of food in other locations such as farm fresh markets. The processed materials and storage of such foods found in air planes have often been found to have chemicals added in order to keep the food longer while reducing the total amount of nutrients found within. In airplanes it seems as though there may be a higher percentage of the latter type of food. Therefore airplane food may not taste as good as fresh food.
- not purely opinion.

See the difference?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There has been a fair bit offered (by way of links etc) by evolutionists on this thread that were exposed as speculation and educated guessing......not as proven fact. Micro-evolution is adaptation and this is what is demonstrated. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution and never will be. One does not " prove" the other.

At this stage, I have to list the number of the things that have been repeatedly explained to you, and that this paragraph demonstrates that you haven't made a single bit of effort to understand.

1) No theory in science is ever "proven", nor does the concept of "proof" exist for scientific theories.
2) Micro-evolution and macro-evolution occur by the exact same process, simply over different amounts of time.
3) The cause of adaptation is evolution. To say you accept adaptation but not evolution is akin to saying you believe in driving but don't believe in engines.
4) The fact that organisms change over time is extremely strong evidence that organisms change larger amounts over larger periods of time - that that the ideas stands on observations alone, but also on evidence from the fossil record and genetics.

I have demonstrated this by highlighting the relevant portions of the links offered as "proof", to show that the evidence revealed in the fossil record is open to the interpretation of the scientists who clearly have an agenda to uphold.

No, you haven't. All you ever did was highlight the use of the conditional clauses in the articles presented to you, and used that as justification that "they aren't claiming to definitely know, so clearly it's all just guesswork!", despite the fact that we both know that if they never used conditional clauses you'd not believe them anyway and accuse them of being dishonest.

To twist a practice of academic honesty into a means to dismiss the evidence is clear proof of your desperate attempts to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your agenda. As long as there's the slightest hint of doubt, as any reasonable person would have about anything, you feel you can just ignore it as speculation. I've never once seen you show enough intellectual and academic honesty to admit uncertainty about anything, and to me that does not indicate the truth of your conviction; it highlights your inability to reason.

Biased interpretation leads to pre-conceived conclusions dictating the "facts", not the other way around.

Which you are a perfect example of. Tell me, where you a Jehovah's Witness before you started rejecting evolution? What is the official position of your church on the matter? Just who has the pre-conceived conclusions here?

Creation or Intelligent Design proponents can make statements of interpretation as well but neither of us can claim positive proof that we are right. Both camps want to believe that they are right. Neither have proof.

Because proof doesn't exist in science.

What we have is evidence. And evolution has lots of that, while creationism has none.

No evolutionist can state categorically that evolution is indisputable.

Actually, yes we can. You yourself have admitted that evolution occurs.

It is very disputable because phrases like "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to conclude that"....are not statements of fact, but are statements of opinion.

No, those are statements of uncertainty. When a conclusion is drawn from inference and evidence, they are tentative. It is a practice of honesty to admit when a conclusion may be wrong, though I doubt you are familiar with either concept.

Tell me, if they never used the conditional clause and always said "definitely did" or "certainly was", would you be more likely to believe them? If your answer is yes, then you are obviously extremely gullible. If your answer is no, then why on earth would them using the conditional matter? If you disagree with their conclusions, what difference does it make if they say "could have" rather than "definitely did"?

This is nothing but a desperate attempt to ignore the actual content of their claims and their conclusions. I'm sure if I told you "The sun may rise tomorrow" you'd use my use of "may" as a basis to believe that the sun rising tomorrow is purely a delusional fantasy.

I think the whole of creation exhibits intelligent design and the last time I looked.....design needs a designer. That is what I think. My position is as tenable as yours.

Not even close, since your argument is circular. You assume the universe is designed, therefore it must have a designer. You position doesn't even pass basic logic, let alone stand alongside evolutionary theory.

 

[outhouse]

No evolutionist can state categorically that evolution is indisputable.

I can.

It Is factual.


What you posit is not.

 

[Sapiens]

There has been a fair bit offered (by way of links etc) by evolutionists on this thread that were exposed as speculation and educated guessing......not as proven fact. Micro-evolution is adaptation and this is what is demonstrated. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution and never will be. One does not " prove" the other.

I have demonstrated this by highlighting the relevant portions of the links offered as "proof", to show that the evidence revealed in the fossil record is open to the interpretation of the scientists who clearly have an agenda to uphold. Biased interpretation leads to pre-conceived conclusions dictating the "facts", not the other way around.

Creation or Intelligent Design proponents can make statements of interpretation as well but neither of us can claim positive proof that we are right. Both camps want to believe that they are right. Neither have proof.

No evolutionist can state categorically that evolution is indisputable. It is very disputable because phrases like "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to conclude that"....are not statements of fact, but are statements of opinion.
Opinion is not fact...it is what someone "thinks" may have happened.

I think the whole of creation exhibits intelligent design and the last time I looked.....design needs a designer. That is what I think. My position is as tenable as yours.

The entire rickety creationist structure is designed to attempt to create parity between a well researched field of science and a branch or religious mythology with the endpoint pretense that its a matter of opinion and "My position is as tenable as yours." In order to make your position as tenable as mine, you must do more than just make the claim ... you must supply data and analysis, both of which are, in your case, sorely lacking and both of which, in the case presented by the evolutionists, are plentiful and overflowing.

 

[JayJayDee]

That's funny, because on post #393, I provided the entirety of the evolutionary biology class from Yale University, and it didn't seem to garner any response from any creationist. I wish I could say I was surprised.

You know I actually watched most of that video and I never saw anything new in the terminology or in the speculative language that evolutionists are renown for. Listen to what he actually says, not what you think he is saying.
He throws millions of years around like they were minutes. As if that many numbers automatically explains everything. Where is the evidence of this slow evolution? Where is one species evolving into a completely different animal?
Where do we see the horse turn into something other than a four footed hairy creature in 55 million years? Was it small? Are there still small horses? Was the original specimen even a horse at all? It is clear to me that the species is not always easy to identify in the fossil record, especially when all you have is a tooth!.....so this is where the educated guesswork comes in.


I know the evolutionists here will be frustrated with my immovable stance, but I have not seen anything that convinces me that all life came about through a series of fortunate accidents when things just happened randomly by undirected chance. The "evidence" for that is simply not there, except in the minds of those who make it up. What I have seen so far is not anything close to proving that "the tree of life" is not the one located in the garden of Eden.....Sorry.

Adaptation...yes! Macro-evolution...no way!

 

[shawn001]

You know I actually watched most of that video and I never saw anything new in the terminology or in the speculative language that evolutionists are renown for. Listen to what he actually says, not what you think he is saying.
He throws millions of years around like they were minutes. As if that many numbers automatically explains everything. Where is the evidence of this slow evolution? Where is one species evolving into a completely different animal?
Where do we see the horse turn into something other than a four footed hairy creature in 55 million years? Was it small? Are there still small horses? Was the original specimen even a horse at all? It is clear to me that the species is not always easy to identify in the fossil record, especially when all you have is a tooth!.....so this is where the educated guesswork comes in.


I know the evolutionists here will be frustrated with my immovable stance, but I have not seen anything that convinces me that all life came about through a series of fortunate accidents when things just happened randomly by undirected chance. The "evidence" for that is simply not there, except in the minds of those who make it up. What I have seen so far is not anything close to proving that "the tree of life" is not the one located in the garden of Eden.....Sorry.

Adaptation...yes! Macro-evolution...no way!

Human's and dinosaurs did not co-exist, by a long shot. There is also overwhelming, without any shadow of a doubt, empirical evidence they did did not.

First humans hadn't evolved yet for a fact.

The asteroid was the size of MT Everest and material even landed on the moon. The entire planet was effected. The KTT Boundary is a fact. Dinosaur fossils and then no dinosaur fossils. The only thing to make that mass extinction event were the relatives of dinosaurs, birds. Very small ancestoral mammals and some reptiles, basically some life that lived in burrows and was underground.

The kinetic energy of 100 billion atomic bombs the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki going off at once. It devastated the planet, shock blast, molten material came down all over the planet, tidal waves, sulfuric acid rain, fires, a deep freeze and an earthquake so powerful it would have instantly broken your legs and jammed them into your body. It changed the surface of the entire Earth.


How the Earth Works: Asteroid Armageddon

Life evolved back from this extinction event. In fact mammals and us eventually evolved from what we remained after the impact.

 

[McBell]

I know the evolutionists here will be frustrated with my immovable stance, but I have not seen anything that convinces me that all life came about through a series of fortunate accidents when things just happened randomly by undirected chance. The "evidence" for that is simply not there, except in the minds of those who make it up. What I have seen so far is not anything close to proving that "the tree of life" is not the one located in the garden of Eden.....Sorry.

Adaptation...yes! Macro-evolution...no way!

Here you are once again desperately clinging to your lies.
Sad that your faith requires so much dishonesty.

 

[Curious George]

You know I actually watched most of that video and I never saw anything new in the terminology or in the speculative language that evolutionists are renown for. Listen to what he actually says, not what you think he is saying.
He throws millions of years around like they were minutes. As if that many numbers automatically explains everything. Where is the evidence of this slow evolution? Where is one species evolving into a completely different animal?
Where do we see the horse turn into something other than a four footed hairy creature in 55 million years? Was it small? Are there still small horses? Was the original specimen even a horse at all? It is clear to me that the species is not always easy to identify in the fossil record, especially when all you have is a tooth!.....so this is where the educated guesswork comes in.


I know the evolutionists here will be frustrated with my immovable stance, but I have not seen anything that convinces me that all life came about through a series of fortunate accidents when things just happened randomly by undirected chance. The "evidence" for that is simply not there, except in the minds of those who make it up. What I have seen so far is not anything close to proving that "the tree of life" is not the one located in the garden of Eden.....Sorry.

Adaptation...yes! Macro-evolution...no way!

What would it mean to you, if evolution was true?

 

[JayJayDee]

Tell me, where you a Jehovah's Witness before you started rejecting evolution? What is the official position of your church on the matter? Just who has the pre-conceived conclusions here?

I was actually a supporter of evolution in my younger days. I had been raised as a believer in Christendom from childhood, but in my teens evolution seemed to make more sense....being the work of scientists and all, it was taught in school. But the more I saw in biology and natural science, the more it screamed at me that none of that could just be the product of blind, undirected chance. Nature itself is full of exquisite design and I already knew that mutations were almost always detrimental to survival, so I started investigating other possibilities.

I could not swallow the "young earth" idea of "creationists" because it was very obvious that the earth itself has been around for perhaps billions of years.
I looked for explanations in other areas but got no sense of satisfaction. All relied on accepting the theory of macro-evolution as fact. I couldn't see how it was provable.

I reached the conclusion of an intelligent designer, long before I became a JW. It was their explanations that I found to be the most reasonable. They were at neither extreme. They accepted adaptation as true science, but baulked at the idea that all life came from a single celled organism that magically sprang into life one day billions of years ago.

What was the point of all that speculation about how life changed if there was no explanation about how it began?

Science knows that all life comes from pre-existing life. I happen to believe that the pre-existing life in connection with the earth is the Creator of life itself. The great "first cause" of everything.

My stance on this issue has not altered from the beginning. I still strongly maintain that there is NO "proof" for the evolutionary "chain" that is claimed by scientists. Just as there is no "proof" for the existence of the Creator.

The evidence is sketchy and inconclusive at best, so there is no sound argument that convinces me. I believe what I see with my own eyes. I do not need an education in science to speculate about what scientists "think" "might have" taken place before anyone other than God himself was around to document it.

The TOE is man's ideas....some believe that the Bible is too.....so choose your position. I have chosen mine, you are free to choose yours.

But, again, you have no more "evidence" than I do. If you do, then show me something that does not require speculation about what "might have" or "could have" taken place by applying a few hundred million years to a process that is "assumed" to have taken place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Adaptation...yes! Macro-evolution...no way!

Then how do you account for the diversity of life? Things don't just "poof" appear and here they are.

 

[JayJayDee]

What would it mean to you, if evolution was true?

I accept that adaptation is a natural process programmed into all living creatures by the Creator. That part is true.
What I do not accept is that macro-evolution is necessarily true because of that. It is a giant leap from one to the other even though science treats it as baby steps.

All life did not come into existence from a single accidental occurrence of life somewhere in the distant past that eventually became all that we see on this earth. That to me is a bigger fantasy that what atheists believe the Bible to be.

 

[Curious George]

I accept that adaptation is a natural process programmed into all living creatures by the Creator. That part is true.
What I do not accept is that macro-evolution is necessarily true because of that. It is a giant leap from one to the other even though science treats it as baby steps.

All life did not come into existence from a single accidental occurrence of life somewhere in the distant past that eventually became all that we see on this earth. That to me is a bigger fantasy that what atheists believe the Bible to be.

I understand your perspective, what I am asking is what would it mean for you and your beliefs if evolution was true.