Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JayJayDee]

OK......you asked for it.......

Please note that you have yet to respond to what I considered a very cordial challenge to your position. You have easily and quickly entered into another bout of rhetorical retorts with other people, repeating the same fallacious claims about evolutionary biology, while failing to address some very valid points in my last response to you.

Here:
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . . | Page 32 | ReligiousForums.com

And here:
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . . | Page 32 | ReligiousForums.com

You took the time to call me out and tag me in a post (whilst offering no rebuttal) and then vanished from the conversation. Why?

Are you kidding? Do you know how much time it would take to respond to every post here? I am essentially a lone rose among the thorns on this thread. The fact that you are all so passionate about your position, demonstrates that you are as "religious" about your belief system as I am. That's fine.

My position all along has been to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is just that...a THEORY. It is taught as "fact" when that is intellectually dishonest. Evolution is no more a demonstrable "fact" than "creation" is.

If you demand "evidence" for a Creator, then we demand evidence for evolution that does not depend on supposition or conjecture or educated guessing. You are in the same position as we are.....no solid evidence...only a belief in the interpretation of your science gurus. We rely on the interpretation of the words of the Creator.

If the Earth was formless and void, which process created the clouds and the atmosphere? Did God only jump into the equation after the natural gravitational confluence of mass formed a large ball in the habitable zone around an already burning Sun? Did he wait a few million years for the volcanic and processes to slow and chill a little bit before getting involved with his specific "creation" events? Also, why is the formation story written from the perspective of being under the clouds, and not transcendent to them, as a deity would be?

This is where we diverge. You want "scientific" answers for your beliefs even when they are based on educated guesswork and supposition. Yet we do not demand to know "how" things were made...only that the Grand Designer put everything in place and that he knew what he was doing. It all works beautifully even though science is trying hard to mess it all up. Scientists are only just scratching the surface in their understanding of creation, yet they have already eliminated all possibility of a Creator....because he isn't "scientific" enough for their clever minds....his existence is too simple and must be relegated to uneducated mythological hogwash.

You can think that if you wish.

The reason why the Genesis account is written from the perspective of those on earth is because that was its intended audience. God didn't have to educate the Angels, they had a front row seat at creation.

Again, why is the account of creation by a god written from the perspective of someone on the ground? Wouldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, been able to pass along some perspective for this process?

As above. He does not owe us an explanation for what he does.

For the 37th time, that is not what evolution teaches. Evolutionary biology teaches speciation driven by natural selection. You yourself stop at micro-evolution, unwittingly assuming that evolving organisms have some arbitrary boundary to adaptation, as if it has this invisible line which keeps them from adapting past a certain point. There is no such line or boundary. Micro-evolution is evolution. Macro-evolution is that same evolutionary process expanded over longer periods of time.

That is what you cannot provide evidence for. You have micro-evolution occurring right now....but there are boundaries that prevent one "kind" from becoming another entirely different "kind" altogether. These are the boundaries that the Bible speaks about....you cannot prove that those words are false.

Micro-economics is the study of economics on a smaller scale. Macro-economics is a larger scaled study of the exact same processes, principles, and theories. Would you not agree?

The microscopic world exists alongside the natural world that is gigantic by comparison, but it still displays the same boundaries and the same materials. Bacteria will not become "animals" or marine creatures, no matter how much time you give them.

We do not yet understand abiogenesis. You have been told this many times. We do understand what building blocks are required in order for carbon-based lifeforms to exist and ultimately evolve.

Can you explain to us, please, what are the building blocks required of magic invisible wizards?

What "magic invisible wizards" would that be? You see the disparaging language you use when referring to things in the invisible realm. I can't see the wind but I observe what it can do. It can be gently refreshing or extremely destructive.
I can't see the electricity that powers my electronic devices either but they would not operate unless it was there. If there was an irreversible power outage, our whole world would collapse.
I can't see the bacteria that might give me food poisoning in my take away meal, so should I stop eating, just in case?

You are all so paranoid about the existence of a Creator, that the mere mention of him has you all scrambling for evidence in your science journals, proving that he can't possibly exist....but nothing convincing or substantial is produced.

Grass and other vegetation are living things...

No kidding.

You also understand that grass and vegetation would have been existent on this planet for millions of years before the atmosphere could have contained enough oxygen to sustain larger organisms, right?

We are confident that the Creator knew when and how to make grass and other vegetation grow. He created the conditions on earth for all living things to thrive. Right from the beginning.......humans mucked that up. We are now living in the world we created....it's a big disappointment.......nothing is as it was intended to be.

That means millions and millions of seasonal cycles and hundreds of thousands of tons vegetative waste would have had to accumulate before there would be enough resources to sustain even the smallest form of animal life. Oceanic creatures would have had slightly fewer requirements, but by admitting that you're getting back to the ole "fish crawled out of the water" dilemma...

This dilemma is all yours. The Creator made the earth, so as any gardener knows, you prepare the soil before you plant anything. He isn't stupid. By your interpretations you evolutionists make up the dilemmas. We don't have any.

Have you ever read an actual scientific journal? You realize how incredibly packed with data they can be, right? And how monotonous and boring they can be because of that, but also how amazing they are for the same reason? Have you ever conducted a simple study of your own? Have you ever participated in any field work of any kind involving scientific studies? Have you ever participated in a higher education biology class?

I have read quite a bit about evolution but not from scientific journals because I would never understand the jargon.
I think you could read the Bible too but never understand it. Like the conclusions reached by scientists, it too is interpretive. You know it is.

You're so incredibly ignorant of the thing that you are railing against that I'm beginning to pity you for just how oblivious you are.

LOL....and I have heard the ignorance card played far too often. You yourselves are ignorant from my perspective also. You are looking at this subject through your own lenses....I am looking at the foundations of your belief system and find it as fanciful as you believe ours is.

Fact - This is a wolf...

Fact - These are ears of corn ( Teosinte & Tripsacum respectively)

Fact - This is a horse (Hyracotherium)

Fact - This is an elephant (Moeritherium)

Fact - This is a dinosaur (Dromaius novaehollandiae; Emu)

Your pics serve to illustrate my point perfectly......the dog, regardless of its size or shape is still a dog and always was.
The wheat is still a plant that resembles wheat and the elephant is still an elephant just as a wooly mammoth was still an elephant. The horse (if that animal ever was a horse) is still a four footed creature with fur (hair) even after the supposed 55 million years it took to get to the modern horse. Small horses still exist. Size is an adaptation (or a man made creation) Colouring is an adaptation. Physical features (size and shape of beaks or feet) are all adaptations. Where are the transitional animals that prove there was a "chain" linking one "kind" to another? We only have the scientists pre-conceived word for any such chain. Often they are not sure what family a skeleton even belongs to, so it isn't an exact science...is it? They look for clues such as teeth or bones and "assume" from that the origin of the species. Again, it is all guesswork. Why is that hard to accept?

Why should we make a false admission just because you guys don't like what we say? We aren't asking you to admit that your god is just a literary creation and an amalgamation of several pre-existing semitic deities, portraying the continuation of otherwise long-dead Mesopotamian mythologies, are we? We just want you embrace scientific observation, free of presuppositional arguments, and jettison ignorance and naivete.

Again the language is elevated and condescending. You can believe whatever you like about the existence or non existence of an intelligent designer.....I cannot see how your suppositional arguments are in any way superior to ours.

Let me just give you one example showing why you're making ridiculous arguments. Imagine I'm studying a new species of plant discovered in a lower climate zone than expected. We have observed the higher climate species' pollen on the receptors of the lower climate species and can trace the new species as a hybrid of the two. I would simply say something in my conclusion like "The annual directional wind patterns in that area have lead me to conclude that the native spores of the inhabiting flora could have shifted downwind towards the lower geographical regions, causing cross pollination that would be otherwise inexplicable." According to you, my wording there should be taken as me trying validate my bias using this "odd" word usage... Studying the fact that a higher region plant has cross pollinated with a lower region plant, and after studying annual wind patterns in an area, wouldn't it be fair to say that my hypothetical statement, which could have been written in a scientific journal, would still be accurate and have nothing at all to do with trying to support "proof" in my very biased beliefs?

Again you demonstrate my point. It is a "hypothetical statement" after reaching a "hypothetical" conclusion based on what you already hold to be true......it is NOT a statement of absolute fact. You just can't see it, can you?

This is all I have ever asked.....that you be truthful about the validity of the findings, knowing that they could well be proven wrong tomorrow. Truth can never be proven wrong. You have no facts....you have assumed them. That is the truth.

You mean unresponsive in the way that challenging questions to you are simply avoided in lieu of clever ad hominem one-liners?

Is that what you thought they were? Do clever ad hominem one-liners pose a threat to your beliefs then?
Are you worried that your theory may have flaws after all? If you are confident about your position, why do you need to keep arguing the point?

Just as any casual reader of this thread can observe, it appears that you are avoiding to respond to legitimate challenges to your position by continually reverting back to your own previously debunked claims while still using the same bogus misrepresentation of what evolutionary biology teaches.

All I can assume now is that you prefer lying in order to maintain your position.

Those who believe in evolution "assume" a lot...it has become an art form...assumption masquerading as fact.

Truth is all I have asked for. The foundation that forms the basis for the assumptions made by evolutionists is not "provable", which means that it isn't fact at all, no matter how much you protest. Just tell the truth. Is that too difficult? Evolution is not proven fact. It is assumed to be fact. I believe that the intellectual dishonesty is all yours.

 

[Bunyip]

OK......you asked for it.......



Are you kidding? Do you know how much time it would take to respond to every post here? I am essentially a lone rose among the thorns on this thread. The fact that you are all so passionate about your position, demonstrates that you are as "religious" about your belief system as I am. That's fine.

My position all along has been to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is just that...a THEORY. It is taught as "fact" when that is intellectually dishonest. Evolution is no more a demonstrable "fact" than "creation" is.

If you demand "evidence" for a Creator, then we demand evidence for evolution that does not depend on supposition or conjecture or educated guessing. You are in the same position as we are.....no solid evidence...only a belief in the interpretation of your science gurus. We rely on the interpretation of the words of the Creator.



This is where we diverge. You want "scientific" answers for your beliefs even when they are based on educated guesswork and supposition. Yet we do not demand to know "how" things were made...only that the Grand Designer put everything in place and that he knew what he was doing. It all works beautifully even though science is trying hard to mess it all up. Scientists are only just scratching the surface in their understanding of creation, yet they have already eliminated all possibility of a Creator....because he isn't "scientific" enough for their clever minds....his existence is too simple and must be relegated to uneducated mythological hogwash.

You can think that if you wish.

The reason why the Genesis account is written from the perspective of those on earth is because that was its intended audience. God didn't have to educate the Angels, they had a front row seat at creation.



As above. He does not owe us an explanation for what he does.



That is what you cannot provide evidence for. You have micro-evolution occurring right now....but there are boundaries that prevent one "kind" from becoming another entirely different "kind" altogether. These are the boundaries that the Bible speaks about....you cannot prove that those words are false.



The microscopic world exists alongside the natural world that is gigantic by comparison, but it still displays the same boundaries and the same materials. Bacteria will not become "animals" or marine creatures, no matter how much time you give them.



What "magic invisible wizards" would that be? You see the disparaging language you use when referring to things in the invisible realm. I can't see the wind but I observe what it can do. It can be gently refreshing or extremely destructive.
I can't see the electricity that powers my electronic devices either but they would not operate unless it was there. If there was an irreversible power outage, our whole world would collapse.
I can't see the bacteria that might give me food poisoning in my take away meal, so should I stop eating, just in case?

You are all so paranoid about the existence of a Creator, that the mere mention of him has you all scrambling for evidence in your science journals, proving that he can't possibly exist....but nothing convincing or substial is produced.



No kidding.



We are confident that the Creator knew when and how to make grass and other vegetation grow. He created the conditions on earth for all living things to thrive. Right from the beginning.......humans mucked that up. We are now living in the world we created....it's a big disappointment.......nothing is as it was intended to be.



This dilemma is all yours. The Creator made the earth, so as any gardener knows, you prepare the soil before you plant anything. He isn't stupid. By your interpretations you evolutionists make up the dilemmas. We don't have any.



I have read quite a bit about evolution but not from scientific journals because I would never understand the jargon.
I think you could read the Bible too but never understand it. Like the conclusions reached by scientists, it too is interpretive. You know it is.



LOL....and I have heard the ignorance card played far too often. You yourselves are ignorant from my perspective also. You are looking at this subject through your own lenses....I am looking at the foundations of your belief system and find it as fanciful as you believe ours is.



Your pics serve to illustrate my point perfectly......the dog, regardless of its size or shape is still a dog and always was.
The wheat is still a plant that resembles wheat and the elephant is still an elephant just as a wooly mammoth was still an elephant. The horse (if that animal ever was a horse) is still a four footed creature with fur (hair) even after the supposed 55 million years it took to get to the modern horse. Small horses still exist. Size is an adaptation (or a man made creation) Colouring is an adaptation. Physical features (size and shape of beaks or feet) are all adaptations. Where are the transitional animals that prove there was a "chain" linking one "kind" to another? We only have the scientists pre-conceived word for any such chain. Often they are not sure what family a skeleton even belongs to, so it isn't an exact science...is it? They look for clues such as teeth or bones and "assume" from that the origin of the species. Again, it is all guesswork. Why is that hard to accept?



Again the language is elevated and condescending. You can believe whatever you like about the existence or non existence of an intelligent designer.....I cannot see how your suppositional arguments are in any way superior to ours.



Again you demonstrate my point. It is a "hypothetical statement" after reaching a "hypothetical" conclusion based on what you already hold to be true......it is NOT a statement of absolute fact. You just can't see it, can you?

This is all I have ever asked.....that you be truthful about the validity of the findings, knowing that they could well be proven wrong tomorrow. Truth can never be proven wrong. You have no facts....you have assumed them. That is the truth.



Is that what you thought they were? Do clever ad hominem one-liners pose a threat to your beliefs then?
Are you worried that your theory may have flaws after all? If you are confident about your position, why do you need to keep arguing the point?



Those who believe in evolution "assume" a lot...it has become an art form...assumption masquerading as fact.

Truth is all I have asked for. The foundation that forms the basis for the assumptions made by evolutionists is not "provable", which means that it isn't fact at all, no matter how much you protest. Just tell the truth. Is that too difficult? Evolution is not proven fact. It is assumed to be fact. I believe that the intellectual dishonesty is all yours.

Evolution has been established as a fact for more than a century. Your denial doesn't change that.

 

[JayJayDee]

Hey people, wake up! ​

JJD is again suckering you into a mindless debate---and is no doubt chuckling about it.

But hey, if this is what melts your butter . . . . . .

.​

A relative of yours Skwim?

 

[JayJayDee]

Evolution has been established as a fact for more than a century. Your denial doesn't change that.

Your denial doesn't change something that is a lot older..... Evolution is an infant masquerading as an adult.

 

[Bunyip]

Your denial doesn't change something that is a lot older..... Evolution is an infant masquerading as an adult.

That didn't make any sense I'm afraid.

 

[psychoslice]

Your denial doesn't change something that is a lot older..... Evolution is an infant masquerading as an adult.

And religion is a child that never grew up.

 

[JayJayDee]

And religion is a child that never grew up.

Religion is an invention of the devil. There was no religion in the garden of Eden.

 

[psychoslice]

Religion is an invention of the devil. There was no religion in the garden of Eden.

But hen there was, and this is a trick to get you back to the garden of Eden, the truth is that we never left, its just a sick idea of a so called god.

 

[JayJayDee]

But hen there was

Religion is the greatest cause of division and bloodshed in the world. Mankind fails to be united because they can't agree on which god should be served and how much blood that god needs in order to be satisfied. All unwittingly serve the same god, however. They just call him by different names. This is not the God who created us. The one who rules mankind at present is a pretender.

and this is a trick to get you back to the garden of Eden, the truth is that we never left, its just a sick idea of a so called god.

That is not what the Bible says, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

 

[psychoslice]

Religion is the greatest cause of division and bloodshed in the world. Mankind fails to be united because they can't agree on which god should be served and how much blood that god needs in order to be satisfied. All unwittingly serve the same god, however. They just call him by different names. This is not the God who created us. The one who rules mankind at present is a pretender.



That is not what the Bible says, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

You sound like a Gnostic ?, but myself there is no god, and I am free from that concept.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes, they are "explained" within the framework of what is already believed to have taken place. There is no "proof", nor are there "facts" that substantiate their evidence except for what the "believe" "might have" happened.



I take exception to stretching adaptation to limits that have no evidence to substantiate them apart from some learned person saying "I think it happened like this". You all have the same pre-conceived notions, so everything that looks like evidence is interpreted to fit your foregone conclusions.



Taking what the Bible says at face value, the Creator brought the universe into existence at one time; a simple statement covers this act..."in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....this included the stars and planets. He then prepared the earth over a very long period of time for habitation. The order of creation is stated and is not at odds with what is demonstrated by science. How could the writer of Genesis know this?

Man is last on the list of creatures be brought into existence. Man alone was made different to the rest of God's creatures...not just physically, but having been endowed with something that animals lack...spirituality. Man alone was to reflect the qualities of his Maker. He alone was to enjoy endless life. It is our experience that we have a collective expectation that life should continue...we have no 'program' for death. Animals do, for the most part.

Ask any old person and they will tell you that age is a state of body, not a state of mind. Ageing takes place physically, not necessarily mentally.



The Bible says that creation of new creatures stopped at the end of the sixth creative period. The seventh "day" began as a rest period from God's creative works, but it didn't mean that creation came to a standstill. Adaptation continues as environments change, and new food sources are sought......but we see no way that the extraordinary systems that exist both within the natural world and in the bodies of the creatures that inhabit it, could possibly be the result of blind chance. Nothing that exhibits design in the world of mankind, lacks a designer and maker. We don't believe that nature can exist without a designer either.



I cannot produce God and introduce him to you. I can show you his written communication with us, but he is not a being in whose presence we could survive. His existence is not explained except to say that he is not a tangible being and that he is incredibly powerful. In order to bring about the universe the Creator must be unlimited in his capacity to do absolutely everything.



It is controlled and interconnected in its design. All systems work harmoniously in conjunction with one another.
Recycling takes place by design...nothing in nature is wasted. Everything has its place and everything knows what it is supposed to do, without intervention from the Creator.
Reproduction takes place by design within the "kinds" specified by the Designer.

Natural systems are all interdependent by design.
Precipitation for example, is no accident. Most of the world's water is not drinkable, yet it is a miraculous substance without which no life would be possible. What is water? How does evaporation evolve to produce the one substance no creature can live without? We take it for granted but it behaves in ways that no other liquid does. It's peculiarities ensure that life will continue to exist.

The Bible says we have no advantage over animals when it comes to death at present, yet this will change in the future.

It is all explained in the Bible. Would you like a BIble study? LOL

You might as well give up trying to talk to evolutionists.

There is no use in tallking to people who don't accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant. Somehow reasonability requires to accept that freedom is real and relevant, as an axiomiatic assumption. Otherwise people start talking nonsense.

 

[darkendless]

You might as well give up trying to talk to evolutionists.

There is no use in tallking to people who don't accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant. Somehow reasonability requires to accept that freedom is real and relevant, as an axiomiatic assumption. Otherwise people start talking nonsense.

You talk about evolution as if it is a belief rather than an acceptance of facts and theories based on established principles.

Nonsense to me is people rejecting observable facts simply because it contradicts faith. We humans are capable of much more.

 

[philbo]

Mutations are almost always detrimental and contribute to the loss of that line rather than to its perpetuation

Thank you - you accept that not all mutations are detrimental. That means some are not - some are even benefitical, right?

That's all you need to get the evolutionary patterns we see. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of mutations are harmful if you've got millions of test subjects and generations to work with. The 0.0001% of mutations that are actually beneficial will fill the gene pool in remarkably few iterations.

As soon as you put that little qualifier "almost" in there, you've conceded that evolution is not so much possible as inevitable.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You talk about evolution as if it is a belief rather than an acceptance of facts and theories based on established principles.

Nonsense to me is people rejecting observable facts simply because it contradicts faith. We humans are capable of much more.

......the problem is that you don't accept the fact that freedom is real. If I were you, I would not pride myself on the capability to accept facts, when you ommit acceptance of this obvious and important fact.

 

[darkendless]

......the problem is that you don't accept the fact that freedom is real. If I were you, I would not pride myself on the capability to accept facts, when you ommit acceptance of this obvious and important fact.

What does freedom being real have to do with Evolution?

I don't pride myself on it, i'm just telling things as they are absent the bias of religious influence.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What does freedom being real have to do with Evolution?

I don't pride myself on it, i'm just telling things as they are absent the bias of religious influence.

Freedom being real has to do with creation being in fact true.

Why do you give a nonsense answer, why don't you in stead provide support for the knowledge about how things are chosen? You have motivation to accept evolution theory, but your motivation to accept any fact about a decision made in the universe is absent.

You are biased by not accepting freedom as fact.

It is a commonly human bias, and that you don't have any religion means it is much more likely that you fall victim to this common human bias.

 

[Shad]

Provide evidence for creation since creation is a term associated with religion. Otherwise you claims are assertions only. Also freedom exists interdependently of religion creationism so does not require the former.

The only bias I see is your religion bias. Also you double standard of asking for evidence while not providing any evidence yourself

 

[darkendless]

Freedom being real has to do with creation being in fact true.

Why do you give a nonsense answer, why don't you in stead provide support for the knowledge about how things are chosen? You have motivation to accept evolution theory, but your motivation to accept any fact about a decision made in the universe is absent.

You are biased by not accepting freedom as fact.

It is a commonly human bias, and that you don't have any religion means it is much more likely that you fall victim to this common human bias.

I don't understand what you mean by freedom? Perhaps you could explain yourself rather than telling me why i'm wrong?

If you mean free will (as in we have a choice how we live, act etc), I completely reject that as evidence for creation.

 

[darkendless]

Similarly cats have free will. My cat is precious and will often refuse to come inside when called. Is she religious because of freedom?

 

[jonathan180iq]

"We do not yet understand abiogenesis. You have been told this many times. We do understand what building blocks are required in order for carbon-based lifeforms to exist and ultimately evolve."

Sure, the number of the beast, life and the evolved animal that the human is,

666 represents the material reality ... the physical universe made up of Carbon atoms ... which has 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons & 6 Electrons.

"God" removing a ribosome from DNA, creating compliment RNA.

Man-DNA
Woman-RNA
Serpent DNA

That's a nice little poetic attempt there, but you've made some fairly serious mistakes while attempting to unify everything under your belief system, namely how RNA came first...

Also, we humans are only like 18% Carbon... 666(18%)=119.88... Maybe that's the mark of the beast!!
The Universe itself contains much more than just carbon. Nitrogen, Neon, Oxygen, Helium & Hydrogen are vastly more prevalent in the universe than Carbon.
Also, Protons and Neutrons aren't fundamental particles. They're made up of Quarks, held together by gluons... How many quarks are in those 6 protons? How many in the neutrons? I'm pretty sure that messes up your poetic math.

6 electrons though... you did get that one right.