Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[darkendless]

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.

When you represent facts I will review them. I take pride in nothing I only observe what can be demonstrated.

Your argument does not and should be dismissed.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

When you represent facts I will review them. I take pride in nothing I only observe what can be demonstrated.

Your argument does not and should be dismissed.

Obviously you will not review anything, you will just make hyper critical statements and throw away remarks when presented with evidence that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. You have a bias against acknowledging this very obvious fact. And this nauseating attitude you have in regards to dealing with these facts, makes any genuine appraisal of the evidence impossible.

There is already obvious evidence available. The efficient functional integration of organisms as a whole, indicates that they are chosen as one whole, instead of that organisms are chosen in parts. We would expect the diversity among organisms to be much wider if it were true that each part is chosen independent from the other parts. Which means, we would expect to see much more weird cancerous looking crap in the organization of organisms, if there were many independent decisions which formed the organism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How come this guy got an answer and you don’t?

Because like I said, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you mention New Mexico. Apparently somebody else knew what you were talking about.

 

[JM2C]

Radiometric dating(often calledradioactive 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 radioactiveisotopeand itsdecayproducts, using known decay rates.[1]The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 byBertram Boltwood[2]and is now the principal source of information about theabsolute ageof rocks and other geological features, including theage of the Earthitself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.

Together withstratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used ingeochronologyto establish thegeological time scale.[3]Among the best-known techniques areradiocarbon dating,potassium-argon datinganduranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages offossilsand the deduced rates ofevolutionarychange. Radiometric dating is also used to datearchaeologicalmaterials, 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

I have read this already. They are all over the internet, our main source of info. This is what I’ve been saying, C&P and pretend we knew everything already.

I want to go back to my question again, ‘cause maybe you did not understand. Here we go again. By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from? The answer is there were no standard studies on age assignments but their own skewed millions of years doctrine. The U-Pb dating is the latest technology on measuring fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico. If you will do a research on this, you will find out yourself that palaeontologists will have to revise their theories on the end of the dinosaurs, the KT extinction. IOW, evolutionist’s skewed millions of years doctrines were not accurate to begin with. Did they check if the dinosaur bones that they’ve found in New Mexico contain collagen protein? No, they did not. Collagen protein could remain in the bones for 30,000 years and collagen contains carbon. A half-life of Carbon can be tested up to 5700 years.

Why they did not check for collagen protein? Are they afraid that they might find the truth about their millions of years doctrines were nothing lies? YES!

 

[JM2C]

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?




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?

I don’t have any qualification at all. Yes, I do pray a lot.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I want to go back to my question again, ‘cause maybe you did not understand. Here we go again. By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from? The answer is there were no standard studies on age assignments but their own skewed millions of years doctrine. The U-Pb dating is the latest technology on measuring fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico. If you will do a research on this, you will find out yourself that palaeontologists will have to revise their theories on the end of the dinosaurs, the KT extinction. IOW, evolutionist’s skewed millions of years doctrines were not accurate to begin with. Did they check if the dinosaur bones that they’ve found in New Mexico contain collagen protein? No, they did not. Collagen protein could remain in the bones for 30,000 years and collagen contains carbon. A half-life of Carbon can be tested up to 5700 years.

Why they did not check for collagen protein? Are they afraid that they might find the truth about their millions of years doctrines were nothing lies? YES!

U-Pb Dating is one of the oldest and most well honed of all dating techniques. What is it exactly that your issue is with radiometric dating? Why is it that you assume it to be inaccurate? Have you done research on how it is done from credible sources or from creationist sources? The first is filled with good information that can answer any questions you have. The second is filled with information that is dressed up to look as if it is correct when it is in fact malarkey.

 

[Curious George]

I have read this already. They are all over the internet, our main source of info. This is what I’ve been saying, C&P and pretend we knew everything already.

I want to go back to my question again, ‘cause maybe you did not understand. Here we go again. By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from? The answer is there were no standard studies on age assignments but their own skewed millions of years doctrine. The U-Pb dating is the latest technology on measuring fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico. If you will do a research on this, you will find out yourself that palaeontologists will have to revise their theories on the end of the dinosaurs, the KT extinction. IOW, evolutionist’s skewed millions of years doctrines were not accurate to begin with. Did they check if the dinosaur bones that they’ve found in New Mexico contain collagen protein? No, they did not. Collagen protein could remain in the bones for 30,000 years and collagen contains carbon. A half-life of Carbon can be tested up to 5700 years.

Why they did not check for collagen protein? Are they afraid that they might find the truth about their millions of years doctrines were nothing lies? YES!

I believe that the half life if carbon 14 is 5734 years which means it can be tested way beyond 5700 years. But I did not look up the number, so that number might be off. Let me check....

Nope it is 5730 according to a quick Google search. I am not copying and pasting, nor do I pretend I have all the answers but if you know about various radiometric and geological dating, why are you asking about them in vague terms? Why not be specific if you have a question? Could it be that you don't want to know the answer?

 

[JM2C]

To JM2C


A person who has a PhDs in history and philosophy of science, don't make that person a scientist. And his field before his PhDs only cover geophysics with his BS, which has nothing do with life science (hence biology), so he is a geophysicist, not a biologist. History and philosophy of science are also unrelated fields to biology.


So no matter what his qualifications, Meyer doesn't qualify as a biologist, so anything he has to say about evolution, is worth little, and geophysics (in Earth science) and biology are to different branches/fields in science.


If Meyer had qualifications in biology or life science, which he clearly don't have, then perhaps you could say his PhD would be relevant.


And lastly, the only "accepted" science are those that can supply testable and verifiable evidences to support their ideas (especially "scientific" theory or hypothesis).


There are no evidences to support ID or creationism, because neither one of them have testable hypothesis, because a Designer or Creator is untestable. ID is nothing more than pseudoscience creationism, trying to masquerade as science.


Meyer and Behe have presented no evidences in that facade for a debate, and they had won no arguments against the theory of evolution, because of the lack EVIDENCES to support this fairytale Designer. There is no more evidences for Intelligent Designer than there is for elf or goblin.

Let me ask you something if you don’t mind. What are your main tenets? It’s really hard to argue with someone who is just going for a ride based on consensus.

Here are my evidences:

GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Where is the evidence of the earth and the heavens?

GE 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Where is the evidence of man?

Where is your evidence that you came from an ape? Did someone found the missing link already?

 

[JM2C]

U-Pb Dating is one of the oldest and most well honed of all dating techniques. What is it exactly that your issue is with radiometric dating? Why is it that you assume it to be inaccurate? Have you done research on how it is done from credible sources or from creationist sources? The first is filled with good information that can answer any questions you have. The second is filled with information that is dressed up to look as if it is correct when it is in fact malarkey.

From the Creationist source. Let me ask you, which one is older, the igneous rocks or sedimentary rocks?

 

[Curious George]

Let me ask you something if you don’t mind. What are your main tenets? It’s really hard to argue with someone who is just going for a ride based on consensus.

Here are my evidences:

GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Where is the evidence of the earth and the heavens?

GE 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Where is the evidence of man?

Where is your evidence that you came from an ape? Did someone found the missing link already?

So?? You are harping on people for relying on texts that are supported and substantiated by numerous other unconnected texts, based upon the a worry that calculations in not one but thousands of independently conceived and researched papers are all incorrect. And to do this you are using a 1500-2100 year old, incomplete, compilation of texts, that has been misinterpreted not once but thousands of times (think people once said the bible supported geocentric solar system etc) as evidence....I think I might know what your problem is.

 

[Salvador]

The rate that new stars are being formed in our universe has declined significantly since its peak some few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Over 95 percent of all the stars, which will ever exist in our universe, have already been formed. Eventually, all the stars in our universe will die out; then subsequently all space will inevitably be at a uniform temperature near absolute zero and there will be no thermodynamic free energy. The universe is structured to become a dark, cold, motionless and lifeless place. It's going to eventually reach its thermodynamic equilibrium or maximum entropy, which means the universe will ultimately reach its heath death or big freeze. If our universe were intelligently designed, then it would have been designed to sustain life forever.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let me ask you something if you don’t mind. What are your main tenets? It’s really hard to argue with someone who is just going for a ride based on consensus.

Here are my evidences:

GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Where is the evidence of the earth and the heavens?

GE 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Not evidence.

Where is the evidence of man?

Where is your evidence that you came from an ape? Did someone found the missing link already?

Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo rudolfensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo gautengensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo ergaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo cepranensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jonathan180iq]

I have read this already. They are all over the internet, our main source of info. This is what I’ve been saying, C&P and pretend we knew everything already.

I want to go back to my question again, ‘cause maybe you did not understand. Here we go again. By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from? The answer is there were no standard studies on age assignments but their own skewed millions of years doctrine. The U-Pb dating is the latest technology on measuring fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico. If you will do a research on this, you will find out yourself that palaeontologists will have to revise their theories on the end of the dinosaurs, the KT extinction. IOW, evolutionist’s skewed millions of years doctrines were not accurate to begin with. Did they check if the dinosaur bones that they’ve found in New Mexico contain collagen protein? No, they did not. Collagen protein could remain in the bones for 30,000 years and collagen contains carbon. A half-life of Carbon can be tested up to 5700 years.

Why they did not check for collagen protein? Are they afraid that they might find the truth about their millions of years doctrines were nothing lies? YES!

You make a lot of claims, and seem certain of your answers, for someone who admits to not having any qualifications at all.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Soft tissues and other materials previously thought not able to survive the millenia have been found and have been studied. Explanations as to why this is possible have already been tested and are now understood.

Uranium-lead dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You said U-Pb dating was the latest method and technology... It's actually one of the oldest and most well-known.

Here is a link to a website attempting to support the conclusion that you are positing. Also please note that you've misstated your own conclusion about the age of the dinosaurs.
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Here is another, in full PDF format
http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

Your supporting websites attempt to write off all of the Paleontological community as being part of a broad conspiracy.
Your supporting websites contain falsehoods about Schweitzer's claims and her personal considerations on the matter, as evdienced in the first link that I have provided.
Your supporting websites are also not scientific at all and full of similar biases.
Your supporting websites, simply at a cursory glance, can be discredited as a valid source.

If you'd like to read more about the actual work of Mary Schweitzer, then please do:
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone (From the National Academy of Sciences)

Here's a fairly simple explanation of why scientists don't rely on only one dating method...
How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones? - HowStuffWorks

 

[JM2C]

I believe that the half life if carbon 14 is 5734 years which means it can be tested way beyond 5700 years. But I did not look up the number, so that number might be off. Let me check....


Nope it is 5730 according to a quick Google search. I am not copying and pasting, nor do I pretend I have all the answers but if you know about various radiometric and geological dating, why are you asking about them in vague terms? Why not be specific if you have a question? Could it be that you don't want to know the answer?

Like I said before, all these info came from the internet and all we have to do is find time to read and understand them and share it in this forum without insulting each other.

I’m a Christian and I read and believe in the bible. If you want to debate me about bible, I can assure you that I can defend what I stand for, but can you defend your cause without falling apart? I asked a simple basic question and none of you gave me the right answer.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

From the Creationist source. Let me ask you, which one is older, the igneous rocks or sedimentary rocks?

Neither is inherently older than the other. Igneous is created from volcanic activity while sedentary is placed by various different mechanisms in sedentary layers. Sedimentary layers are erosion of other rocks and almost all rock on the earth at one time was igneous. But any specific soil sample doesn't have to be younger or older simply because of its type.

And have you ever thought of actually going to the real sources rather than creationist sources? Just for fun one day?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Like I said before, all these info came from the internet and all we have to do is find time to read and understand them and share it in this forum without insulting each other.

I’m a Christian and I read and believe in the bible. If you want to debate me about bible, I can assure you that I can defend what I stand for, but can you defend your cause without falling apart? I asked a simple basic question and none of you gave me the right answer.

Partly because the questions are either loaded or don't make sense. For example why would they attempt to use a dating method that they know won't work? If they used a method that they knew would be inaccurate that would simply create an inaccurate result. Often times they must use several different methods to check and double check their results. If they find it to be erroneous they then have to re-do the test again to make sure that they get the same answer and then double check that answer with other methods. It can actually be a very tedious and time consuming process to accurately date something if there is an error. That is why they have perfected it to the point there are few errors.

But what is the "basic question" other than "why didn't they use test "x"" ?

 

[Curious George]

Like I said before, all these info came from the internet and all we have to do is find time to read and understand them and share it in this forum without insulting each other.

I’m a Christian and I read and believe in the bible. If you want to debate me about bible, I can assure you that I can defend what I stand for, but can you defend your cause without falling apart? I asked a simple basic question and none of you gave me the right answer.

How did I not give the right answer? I asked for clarification to which you posted some other members response. Forced to make an assumption, I gave you what I thought you wanted- a brief description of different types of dating. I am sorry if you were not clear enough. However, yes, I believe that I can support my position quite well.

But sure, if the bible is your proof against evolution and the evidence that supports your view please explain how the sun orbits the earth...or do you believe otherwise?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don’t have any qualification at all. Yes, I do pray a lot.

First perhaps is the problem, second is not relevant.

 

[JM2C]

Here is a link to a website attempting to support the conclusion that you are positing. Also please note that you've misstated your own conclusion about the age of the dinosaurs.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Where is the 66 millions of years came from before the KT extinction if 14C dating says “Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.”

 

[gnostic]

Let me ask you something if you don’t mind. What are your main tenets? It’s really hard to argue with someone who is just going for a ride based on consensus.

And you don't think consensus has no bearing among churches and Christians.

A large part of church history showed that what their belief are based on consensus among church leaders, which had little to with the real world with these supernatural miracles and superstitious of invisible God, Devil and angels.

I really don't have tenets - I am agnostic.

I have qualifications in civil engineering and computer science, so my scientific background, based on practical science, hence the Bachelor of Applied Science. And even though I find theoretical physics very exciting, it is not fields of expertise, so I tends to learn more on experimental science, in which empirical evidences to go with any idea, view, hypothesis or theory.

So my view of the world, blending agnosticism with science, is that if there are no testable or verifiable evidences to support any idea, view or belief, then it is more than likely not real.

If scriptures contain anything that defy logic, physics or nature, then it is supernatural, and supernatural don't exist, unless it is a religion, myth, fiction (like science fiction or horror).

I was nearly baptised, twice, when I was younger (when I was 16 and 19), so I know the bible. The 1st time I was baptised in my older sister's church, the 2nd time I nearly joined, I had falling out with the pastor. I wasn't conventional enough for him, and he told me that I would burn in hell if I didn't give up my way of thinking. And this had nothing to do with evolution or science. I actually used to believe in miracles back then.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but a philosophical stance or view on religion, particularly on the matter of "theism" - which is the existence of deity/deities. Agnosticism doesn't have any tenet or dogma, because agnosticism are not organised groups. They are individuals, freethinkers, in perhaps the most truest sense. I would fall under group as weak agnostics or empirical agnostics, where everything is false unless there are evidences to prove otherwise.

This is not really a tenet, but that's all I can give you.

Don't get me wrong. I like reading stories from the bible, but that's all they are to me. It is a work of literature, myths, and legends; I just believe they are mostly allegories. My favorite happened to Genesis 1 to 11, bit I view them as a myth.

The bible is no different from other ancient religions. The real values in their myths come from teaching some sort of lessons, like morality or ethics. Taking them literally as if they were history or science, actually make the people look ridiculously naive.