Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[dust1n]

Why not? How about you?

What do you mean why not? If someone has a Ph.D. in English literature, why would I think they would be able to elaborate knowingly on the Collatz conjecture?

\What is you qualification here? Do you have anything to say about how you found out about dating fossils? Cause I don't.

Perhaps you are familiar with the saying those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

I don't study biology or science, but have taken Marine Biology, Botany, Evolutionary Biology, Earth Science, and labs in school. Not to mention, I routinely watch the free classes from Yale and Stanford.

And your qualification? Excellent prayer?

 

[dust1n]

I guess you’re one of them? Since dating fossils is part of evolution, can you kindly please educate me on how you understood the millions of years from the mass extinction?

Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1] The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood[2] and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.

Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[3] Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.

Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bunyip]

Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

-Wiki

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

Not a qualified biologist huh? Makes him a bit of a con artist doesn't it?

 

[Bunyip]

JM2C

Just FYI, radio active decay as a dating technique is so astonishingly accurate that the same phenomenon is used to time the races in the Olympics.

 

[JayJayDee]

You've been given quite a bit of evidence already, so it's pretty perplexing that you're still asserting that you've seen no credible evidence.

evidence of biological evolution - Google Scholar
What is the evidence for evolution?
Evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Foundational Concepts : Life Processes
Teach Evolution and Make it Relevant

Thanks for the links. I read some of them and saw exactly what I see in all the support arguments for evolution. I see scientists taking a small 'molehill' of adaptation and making a 'mountain' of evidence out of what they "think" "might have" happened. Going right to the base of the problem.....I still see supposition and educated guessing, masquerading as facts.
One of the quotes was even suggesting that we ignore the things that seem impossible. I guess that is what keeps it in the realms of probability for most of you.

You are looking at these things through a completely different lens to me. It's what you don't notice in the way things are worded that makes the supposition 'appear' to be fact. There are NO FACTS. So the teaching of evolution is dishonest in claiming to be fact....That is my opinion and I am not alone.

 

[Bunyip]

Thanks for the links. I read some of them and saw exactly what I see in all the support arguments for evolution. I see scientists taking a small 'molehill' of adaptation and making a 'mountain' of evidence out of what they "think" "might have" happened. Going right to the base of the problem.....I still see supposition and educated guessing, masquerading as facts.
One of the quotes was even suggesting that we ignore the things that seem impossible. I guess that is what keeps it in the realms of probability for most of you.

You are looking at these things through a completely different lens to me. It's what you don't notice in the way things are worded that makes the supposition 'appear' to be fact. There are NO FACTS. So the teaching of evolution is dishonest in claiming to be fact....That is my opinion and I am not alone.

Unfortunately it is an opinion forced upon you by your beliefs. I think it is sad that you have such fear for what is really only a natural process that has no real bearing on Christianity or faith more generally.
Were I to feel that my holy book conflicted with the evidence I would simply assume that the fault was in my interpretation - not in the utterly implausible notion that some tens of millions of scientists are participating in a grand fraud so improbable and irrational that it makes all other absurdist claims pale in comparison

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Unfortunately it is an opinion forced upon you by your beliefs. I think it is sad that you have such fear for what is really only a natural process that has no real bearing on Christianity or faith more generally.
Were I to feel that my holy book conflicted with the evidence I would simply assume that the fault was in my interpretation - not in the utterly implausible notion that some tens of millions of scientists are participating in a grand fraud so improbable and irrational that it makes all other absurdist claims pale in comparison

Very simply the science about how things are chosen has not been worked out yet. So all these millions of scientists are ignorant about how choosing works.

 

[Bunyip]

Very simply the science about how things are chosen has not been worked out yet. So all these millions of scientists are ignorant about how choosing works.

What is the 'science of what is chosen'? What do you mean by asking how choosing works? In English your post does not have a meaning I can see. Sorry.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is the 'science of what is chosen'? What do you mean by asking how choosing works? In English your post does not have a meaning I can see. Sorry.

There are a few scientists who are beginning to describe freedom in the universe. Hyperincursive selfrefferential computing whereby objects generate multiple potential future states any of which can be chosen. But this science has not been worked out yet.

The vast majority in science is like you, choosing what is that?

 

[Bunyip]

There are a few scientists who are beginning to describe freedom in the universe. Hyperincursive selfrefferential computing whereby objects generate multiple potential future states any of which can be chosen. But this science has not been worked out yet.

The vast majority in science is like you, choosing what is that?

Sorry my friend. I don't get it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sorry my friend. I don't get it.

Yes very impressive ignorance.

 

[JayJayDee]

Unfortunately it is an opinion forced upon you by your beliefs. I think it is sad that you have such fear for what is really only a natural process that has no real bearing on Christianity or faith more generally.

For unbelievers it has no relevance at all. But my beliefs are not forced on me at all. My own eyes and common sense tell me that design requires a designer. If you don't want to accept that.....that is your choice. It is not my choice.

Were I to feel that my holy book conflicted with the evidence I would simply assume that the fault was in my interpretation

There is no conflict with the evidence.

not in the utterly implausible notion that some tens of millions of scientists are participating in a grand fraud so improbable and irrational that it makes all other absurdist claims pale in comparison

You have no idea of the power behind the fraud. There is no point in trying to explain, you wouldn't believe it anyway. Everyone will one day.

 

[darkendless]

You are just another evolutionist to write meaningless nonsense around the issue of how things are chosen in the universe.

When the issue is decisions then all these stated ideals of evolutionists to look at the evidence and such goes right out the window. Because they are social darwinists, and don't care for freedom .

One wonders what evolutionists do in a court of law when the judge points to their decisions as the origin of their behaviour.

I'm not an evolutionist. No one is an evolutionist.

You're either an observer of the fact of evolution or just another bias idiot.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm not an evolutionist. No one is an evolutionist.

You're either an observer of the fact of evolution or just another bias idiot.

You either form opinions on the spirit in which things are decided in the universe or you have no emotional depth.

 

[darkendless]

You either form opinions on the spirit in which things are decided in the universe or you have no emotional depth.

Emotion is for those who don't understand or refuse to accept established facts,

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Emotion is for those who don't understand or refuse to accept established facts,

You require knowledge of the facts of how things are decided, to then make opinion on the spirit in which it was decided.

And this knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe is totally absent with evolutionists. And even for animals and people, the knowledge about how they choose is generally absent among evolutionists. Seeing as that evolution scientists fall over each other trying to be as radical as possible in denying free will is real.

 

[darkendless]

You require knowledge of the facts of how things are decided, to then make opinion on the spirit in which it was decided.

And this knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe is totally absent with evolutionists. And even for animals and people, the knowledge about how they choose is generally absent among evolutionists. Seeing as that evolution scientists fall over each other trying to be as radical as possible in denying free will is real.

Things are not decided, things just are as they are.

You can't prove otherwise. I think we've gone as far as we're going to here.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Things are not decided, things just are as they are.

You can't prove otherwise. I think we've gone as far as we're going to here.

Very impressive ignorance again from the evolutionist side of things.

 

[darkendless]

Very impressive ignorance again from the evolutionist side of things.

Irony.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Irony.

Irony is when you totally ignore all facts about how things are decided with a throwaway comment that freedom cannot be proven, and then take pride in yourself for accepting facts without bias, because you accept the fact of evolution.