Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[metis]

I remember this commercial: A rich woman with a faucet ask an architect to design a house base on the faucet. They built a whole man around a pig’s tooth. That was no hypothesis; it was a deliberate misleading by these evolutionists.

If you don't accept the provable and rather logical explanation, that's your problem.

 

[outhouse]

I'm doing fine here man, thank you

Yes your proving fanaticism and fundamentalism are still strong.

 

[outhouse]

Your belief is not relevant. It is evidence for fanaticism and fundamentalism when one refuses academia without the knowledge to do so.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your belief is not relevant. It is evidence for fanaticism and fundamentalism when one refuses academia without the knowledge to do so.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

It does not acknowledge freedom is real and relevant in the universe, so that explanation of origins belongs in the garbage.

We have eyes. We already know that freedom is real and relevant. So that would have to be part of the theory of origins, or we might as well be blind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It does not acknowledge freedom is real and relevant in the universe, so that explanation of origins belongs in the garbage.

It does no such thing, and you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence of this claim in spite of the countless times you have made it.

We have eyes. We already know that freedom is real and relevant. So that would have to be part of the theory of origins, or we might as well be blind.

Nonsensical statement that has no bearing on reality.

 

[JM2C]

You have no clue what you're talking about. I did not state nor imply that Moses did not exist, only that I don't actually know if he did.

This is not exactly rocket science, so it begs the question as to why you didn't understand this basic statement.

I keep the Sabbath mainly because it makes sense for me to do so.

Also, you posit a false dichotomy that looks at only extreme positions, whereas if something is not 100% true, then it must be a "HOAX". Hogwash and illogical. There are myriads of variations found within the Christian scriptures, so does that too make Christianity a "HOAX"?

No, I call it syllogism. My answer remains the same; you cannot separate the Sabbath from Moses’ and Moses’ from the Sabbath. IOW, the only way a Sabbath can make sense to anyone is if Moses exists.

So, it’s either you believe that Moses did really exist or the Sabbath that you follow should NOT make any sense to you at all. Consciousness of the Sabbath is consciousness of Moses’. You cannot subjectively separate the Sabbath from Moses’, it’s not going to work. One will not make any sense at all without the other.

You said it yourself,

One simply cannot separate the 10 from the other 603 Laws as it is made clear throughout both the Torah and Tanakh that all of the Law was given by God, but not all at one time. Moses brought down the first 10 in tablet form, but if one keeps reading he continues to add to that list while stating that they are also from God. What preceded the 10 were what we call the seven Noachide Laws.

I love quote mining so you have to be very careful on what you are saying because it can go against you. Tell me who is telling a lie, you or me?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You said it yourself, I love quote mining so you have to be very careful on what you are saying because it can go against you. Tell me who is telling a lie, you or me?

Are you certain you understand what "quote mining" actually means? Because, if you do, then you literally just admitted to telling lies.

 

[JM2C]

If you don't accept the provable and rather logical explanation, that's your problem.

You know I can’t still get over that 3,200,000 years of human evolutions and here you are talking “logical explanation”. You people have not explained anything yet to convince me about what is your “logical explanation” about evolution and you thought that I’m that one with the problem understanding. NO! “that’s your problem” not mine.

 

[JM2C]

Are you certain you understand what "quote mining" actually means? Because, if you do, then you literally justadmitted to telling lies.

You always ask me technical questions. Do you have more to say about evolutions?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You always ask me technical questions.

Every question I've asked you has been extremely basic. If you cannot answer such questions as "Can you please explain why exactly you feel you cannot reconcile belief in God with acceptance of evolution theory?", "Do you think every living organism always leave behind a fossil?" and "What do you think causes fossilisation?", then perhaps you should think very carefully about how well thought-out your position is.

Do you have more to say about evolutions?

I have plenty more to say, but first I'd like acknowledgement of the arguments I've already made and the answers I gave you to your questions.

Just so you know, quote mining is when you deliberately take a quote out of context in order to imply it has a different meaning than what was intended and to deliberately misrepresent the person who made the quotation. It is a form of dishonesty. I assume by "quote mining" you literally meant "getting quotations that were made some time ago that may have since been forgotten", but this isn't what the phrase specifically refers to. You'd be better off not calling it that or people might not take you seriously.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Question? You’re the one asking and I gave the answer.

I’m just relaying a message from Darwin. “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” –Darwin

Thousands? NO! Darwin said: “COUNTLESS NUMBERS”

You appear to live in the past.

It is 2015 now, and we have found many, many fossils buried within the earth. Time to catch up.

 

[Shad]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Classic outdated thinking from a scientific model from the turn of the 20th century. A single example of spontaneous creation of an organism never seen before, descendant from any other organism nor based on a chemical compound in an environment would falsify evolution. Literally an organism "puffing" into existence. Verification, your "proven", is no longer the standard by which theories are held to. No amount of "verification" will make a position 100% absolute fact/truth, this is the problem of induction. However it only takes 1 piece of evidence to falsify a theory.

Logic 101, verification is outdated.... You confuse a theory's predictive power with verification.

 

[McBell]

I'm doing fine here man, thank you. How about you? Let’s hear some of your comments about the subject.

Your denial is most comical.

Though, I suspect it is more ignorance than denial.

 

[McBell]

Not ignorant anymore about evolution, but actually learning a lot from you guys, that none of you can defend it especially from you.

Did you know that Dr. Jack Horner and Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the one who found the T-Rex, that someone offered them $23,000 to test the collagen protein with carbon 14 but they turned it down? Why? You should do a research on this.

Until you start talking about evolution and not one of you many strawmen you call evolution...

 

[metis]

No, I call it syllogism. My answer remains the same; you cannot separate the Sabbath from Moses’ and Moses’ from the Sabbath. IOW, the only way a Sabbath can make sense to anyone is if Moses exists.

So, it’s either you believe that Moses did really exist or the Sabbath that you follow should NOT make any sense to you at all. Consciousness of the Sabbath is consciousness of Moses’. You cannot subjectively separate the Sabbath from Moses’, it’s not going to work. One will not make any sense at all without the other.

Who do you think gives you the right to try and tell me what I must believe within Judaism, which is a religion you don't belong to anyway? You can believe in what you want to believe, and you have shown time and time again that objective evidence literally means nothing to you, and now you expect me to accept your delusions of grandeur? Ah, no.

You said it yourself, I love quote mining so you have to be very careful on what you are saying because it can go against you. Tell me who is telling a lie, you or me?

Citing the 613 Laws is "quote mining"?! It seems that lying, distorting, and ignoring objective evidence is a trademark of your "faith", and you seriously should probably look for another church that teaches honesty and the use of reason.

Anyhow, post whatever you want, as I no longer have an interest in that which you belch out.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who do you think gives you the right to try and tell me what I must believe within Judaism, which is a religion you don't belong to anyway? You can believe in what you want to believe, and you have shown time and time again that objective evidence literally means nothing to you, and now you expect me to accept your delusions of grandeur? Ah, no.



Citing the 613 Laws is "quote mining"?! It seems that lying, distorting, and ignoring objective evidence is a trademark of your "faith", and you seriously should probably look for another church that teaches honesty and the use of reason.

Anyhow, post whatever you want, as I no longer have an interest in that which you belch out.

People who deny the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant are too much for complaining about others rejecting facts.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What facts are you talking about? You guys are still in the theory business. No facts were ever produced by any evolutionists.

Do you think that theories cannot be fact? What makes something a scientific fact in your mind?

 

[JM2C]

Just so you know, quote mining is when you deliberately take a quote out of context in order to imply it has a different meaning than what was intended and to deliberately misrepresent the person who made the quotation. It is a form of dishonesty. I assume by "quote mining" you literally meant "getting quotations that were made some time ago that may have since been forgotten", but this isn't what the phrase specifically refers to. You'd be better off not calling it that or people might not take you seriously.

I remember last summer when I posted this

I think you have a very big misconception of the word or the name Christian.You think Christians are more on politics than religion. Well, perhaps you should read more about the history of Christianity. True Christians are different from other semi-Christians or semi-hybrid Christians.

and this was his answer to that post

Your No True Scotsman is also nothing more than a big steaming pile of self serving crap.
I have to wonder if using a big steaming pile of self serving bull **** as your strawman is the best you got..?

but now you are agreeing with my “BOLD EMPTY CLAIMS”

I agree, there is such a thing as a "True Christian".

IOW, your inconsistency is proving you wrong or going against you.

At least you are consistent, right?

Otherwise it will be held against you if you are not consistent of what you are saying just like today.

Quote mining is presenting quotes out of context in order to make it appear that the one quoted is saying something they are not saying. It is lying.

You have done a most excellent job at quote mining me.


And you wonder why you are thought of as dishonest?

Now that is what you call “BOLD EMPTY CLAIM” It gets back to you your own very words, “BOLD EMPTY CLAIM”

Mestemia accused me of quote mining, but if you read it carefully, I was not really lying at all when I quote him or quote mine him.

And if you read the definition of QUOTE MINING “it is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying” -wiki.

“Scientists and their supporters used the term quote mining as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain creationists.[12][13][14] The term is used by members of the scientific community to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments,[15][16][17] though it can be and often is used outside of the creation–evolution controversy. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term:Theodosius Dobzhanskywrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": -Wiki

Now, as we can read from wiki that the term “quote mining” was used as early as the mid-1990s by the EVOLUTIONISTS or the scientific community. IOW, it was the EVOLUTIONISTS who gave the definition to the words “quote mining” as a “deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context” to describe a method employed by the CREATIONISTS.

But here you should be able to understand the true meaning of “Quote Mining” and it’s not what the EVOLUTIONISTS thought it was, but the opposite or the truth of what the CREATIONISTS thought of the EVOLUTIONISTS. IOW, every time a CREATIONIST quotes an EVOLUTINIST’S writer like Darwin, right away they accused the CREATIONIST of QUOTE MINING just to defeat the argument. I’ve quoted Darwin and Galton in this debate so many times, why no one accused me of QUOTE MINING.

So, when I said: “I love quote mining”, does this mean I’m telling a lie? NO! I was accused by Mestemia of “QUOTE MINING” but you people read that I was not. Mestemia was the one lying when he said

I agree, there is such a thing as a "True Christian".

contradicting his previous post

Your No True Scotsman is also nothing more than a big steaming pile of self serving crap.

I have to wonder if using a big steaming pile of self serving bull **** as your strawman is the best you got..?

Like Mestemia, Metis did the same thing.

You have no clue what you're talking about. I did not state nor imply that Moses did not exist, only that I don't actually know if he did.
This is not exactly rocket science, so it begs the question as to why you didn't understand this basic statement.

I keep the Sabbath mainly because it makes sense for me to do so.

Also, you posit a false dichotomy that looks at only extreme positions, whereas if something is not 100% true, then it must be a "HOAX". Hogwash and illogical. There are myriads of variations found within the Christian scriptures, so does that too make Christianity a "HOAX"?

and I quote mine him from his previous post,

One simply cannot separate the 10 from the other 603 Laws as it is made clear throughout both the Torah and Tanakh that all of the Law was given by God, but not all at one time. Moses brought down the first 10 in tablet form, but if one keeps reading he continues to add to that list while stating that they are also from God. What preceded the 10 were what we call the seven Noachide Laws.

You see how Metis contradicted himself by describing “Moses brought down the first 10 in tablet form”. How can he rightly quote about Moses if he was not sure if he really exist or not? And if you notice he even mentioned the “Seven Noachide Laws”. Was he referring after the flood on which the EVOLUTIONISTS do not agree at all?

 

[outhouse]

I was accused by Mestemia of “QUOTE MINING”

Because you were.

You were caught red handed on Lucy.

 

[JM2C]

Because you were.

You were caught red handed on Lucy.

How did they get Lucy's age again?