Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Popcorn]

. . . 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.

I think, all these biologists want to categorize every kind of organism according to a thing of kingdom, phylum, etc. Where does that come from? Why do they consider a British white supremacist political system as the ideal means to study biology?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What was the meaning of the word "theory" before science changed it? Making the word mean something else doesn't change a supposition into a fact...no matter how much science or time you throw at it. All science has are "could have's" and "might have's"...hardly the language of facts. It is a belief about what they think may have taken place...pure and simple. No real facts necessary...just flash a few credentials and people will swallow everything you say. And they reckon we are sheep.

Wow, so you're just going to keep going with this nonsense, are you?

All of this relies on interpretation of "evidence" by those who already have a conclusion in mind and see what they want to see in the said "evidence". Bias rarely produces an objective finding in anything. This is what evolutionist will not admit.

What a scientific theory relies on is all evidence pointing to the same explanation. In this case, that explanation is the theory of evolution. In all these years all new evidence discovered has reinforced the veracity of this theory, which is why it is called a scientific theory. There could have been plenty of evidence found by now to discredit it and yet there has been nothing, and not for lack of looking either.

But go ahead, come up with your own hypothesis, publish some evidence, wait for others to be able to repeat your studies with the same results, wait until multiple lines of evidence from multiple independent sources support your theory, and then your ideas can be taken seriously in the same way the theory of evolution is. You really need to learn what the scientific method is all about since it has so far been the most reliable method we've been able to come up with for obtaining knowledge about how our world and our universe operate. It is so much more than conjecture and speculation, you apparently have no idea. It's a lot more reliable than some dusty old holy book written thousands of years ago by people who knew far less than we know now.

 

[outhouse]

the whole charade that science is touting.

Unsupported rhetoric.

Faith based Fanaticism and Fundamentalism do not help you take down academia and the facts it teaches in every credible university around the world because it goes against mythology.

And those who say "the devil is doing it" is quite laughable to many.

 

[David M]

Read your post again GENIUS! READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS GENIIUS: YOU DON’T MOVE THE “whole population” BECAUSE NOT ALL THEM BELONG TO JUDAH. ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO BELONGS TO THE TRIBE OF JUDAH WERE THE ONE WHO TRAVELED FROM ANY PLACE TO JUDAH. IOW GENIUS, THEY ARE NOT THE “WHOLE POPULATION”. THIS IS NOT A DIASPORA WHERE YOU MOVE THE “WHOLE POPULATION” THEY WERE NOT CAPTURED BY THE ROMANS.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW, GENIUS? I GUESS I SHOULD SAY THE SAME THING TO YOU, RIGHT? I guess you have reading comprehension issues. Were you home-schooled or are you incompetent? I GUESS YOU ARE BOTH GENIUS!!!!

You must have realised how badly you messed up on this, the meltdown is impressive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do yourself a favor and point out a real Christian who is not swayed by his peers in the scientific community into defecting from belief in the Creator God as the intelligence behind all the design in nature.

I just did.

Either we are believers or we are defectors. I am not a defector and I see through through the whole charade that science is touting. There is a cunning deceiver at work in the world and he has been very successful from the beginning by exploiting the frailty of the human ego. You think there is no peer pressure in the scientific world? Think again.

So you seriously think that hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning practically all of the scientific disciplines over the last 200 years have simply been putting on a charade? That the fossil record, biology, genetics, etc. is all just made up as some "cunning" scam to turn the world into atheists? And you think anyone should take you seriously because ... ?

Anyway, it looks like they've failed miserably then since most of the world's population are still religious. I wonder why they keep it up then? Oh right, because the evidence points to the reality of the theory of evolution.

And by the way, anyone who was able to overturn the theory of evolution would probably win a freaking Nobel Prize.

 

[JayJayDee]

And theology is what? interpretation of mythology?

We have factual evidence.

You have biased faith.

You have no factual evidence at all. You have biased interpretation of evidence...it isn't the same.

And I have said all along that belief in an intelligent Creator is a matter of faith based on what can be observed with our God-given senses.
Yours is a matter of faith in the teachers of science. Real science has facts, it does not rely on supposition as its foundation. Real science depends on repeatable scientific procedures.....substantiated facts.....organic evolution wants us to believe that the cosmetic differences observed in adaptation results in all things evolving over millions of years to produce all that we see as life on earth....a stretch...much? Adaptation is not proof of organic evolution. Adaptations were the result of changes in climate or feeding patterns. They never resulted in one "kind" transforming into another completely different "kind" of creature. That is fantasy. To suggest that one is the same as the other, but just took longer is absurd!

If your making claims of scientific bias, you have NOTHING but unsubstantiated rhetoric to back your claims.

I guess the old "unsubstantiated rhetoric" is a favorite expression of yours......doesn't apply to you though, does it?

Organic evolution is unsubstantiated, except in the minds of those who WANT to believe it. How are you any different to me in your desire to believe what you wish to believe? Neither of us have the "proof" we desire.

 

[David M]

There are forms of life which survive using hydrothermal vents.

There is life found in rock layers deep, deep underground.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have no factual evidence at all. You have biased interpretation of evidence...it isn't the same.

And I have said all along that belief in an intelligent Creator is a matter of faith based on what can be observed with our God-given senses.
Yours is a matter of faith in the teachers of science. Real science has facts, it does not rely on supposition as its foundation. Real science depends on repeatable scientific procedures.....substantiated facts.....organic evolution wants us to believe that the cosmetic differences observed in adaptation results in all things evolving over millions of years to produce all that we see as life on earth....a stretch...much? Adaptation is not proof of organic evolution. Adaptations were the result of changes in climate or feeding patterns. They never resulted in one "kind" transforming into another completely different "kind" of creature. That is fantasy. To suggest that one is the same as the other, but just took longer is absurd!

There is no "faith in the teachers of science" required. The theory of evolution has exactly what you are asking for: repeatable scientific procedures and substantiated facts, as well as predictive and practical value. So it's more than you're asking for. What's the problem?

"Kind" is your own definition of something that isn't used in a scientific context, which, of course, you already know.
But like I said, feel free to come up with your own hypothesis, gather some evidence and use it to overturn the theory of evolution. That should be easy for you.

I guess the old "unsubstantiated rhetoric" is a favorite expression of yours......doesn't apply to you though, does it?

No, it doesn't apply to the theory of evolution, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Organic evolution is unsubstantiated, except in the minds of those who WANT to believe it. How are you any different to me in your desire to believe what you wish to believe? Neither of us have the "proof" we desire.

This entire paragraph is unsubstantiated.

 

[David M]

I think, all these biologists want to categorize every kind of organism according to a thing of kingdom, phylum, etc. Where does that come from? Why do they consider a British white supremacist political system as the ideal means to study biology?

Linnaeus was Swedish. He is the father of modern Taxonomy. Its roots go back to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians.

As to why its used... because it works.

 

[JayJayDee]

I just did.

Matt 7:21-23

So you seriously think that hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning practically all of the scientific disciplines over the last 200 years have simply been putting on a charade?

On purpose? No. But I believe that men are easily led into beliefs that suit their own preferences and ego.
There is an unseen but powerful entity in this world whose agenda they are unwittingly serving. But in denying the existence of a Creator, they will also deny the existence of the one backing them up.

That the fossil record, biology, genetics, etc. is all just made up as some "cunning" scam to turn the world into atheists? And you think anyone should take you seriously because ... ?

It isn't a matter of taking "me" seriously.....all this evidence you point to is a matter of interpretation, by men who have already made up their minds about their findings. Their agenda will guarantee that they will find what they are looking for. Just like scripture, if the interpretation is wrong, you could find yourself working for the wrong "side".

Anyway, it looks like they've failed miserably then since most of the world's population are still religious. I wonder why they keep it up then? Oh right, because the evidence points to the reality of the theory of evolution.

Being "religious" has nothing to do with anything....even the devil is a believer.

And by the way, anyone who was able to overturn the theory of evolution would probably win a freaking Nobel Prize.

No one is going to overturn the theory of evolution as long as the groundswell of the majority supports it. Weight of numbers however, has little to do with something being correct. This is especially true with matters pertaining to Christianity. (Matt7:13, 14) Not many are on the road to life....most are on the other one, blissfully unaware of where they are headed. But that is their choice. (Matt 24:36-39)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Matt 7:21-23

First of all, why is a Bible reference relevant to this discussion or to me?

And secondly, since you did post it, I must point out that maybe you’re the one who’s got it wrong and Francis Collins has got it right. How would we ever be able to determine who is right? Dr. Collins apparently thinks your god is more intelligent than you do, since he gives your god credit for creating evolution, which appears to be something you do not agree with. Just how unintelligent is this god you believe in?

On purpose? No. But I believe that men are easily led into beliefs that suit their own preferences and ego.

Sure but that doesn’t apply to you, right? Just to the hundreds of thousands of independent researchers that have been producing evidence that supports the theory of evolution over the last 200 years.

The fact that all the evidence points to the theory of evolution and you still deny it speaks more to where you’re coming from than anyone else, I’d say.

There is an unseen but powerful entity in this world whose agenda they are unwittingly serving. But in denying the existence of a Creator, they will also deny the existence of the one backing them up.

So in one breath you’re going to go on about how you think science makes unsubstantiated claims and in the next breath you’re going assert unsubstantiated claims as facts?

How do you know this “unseen but powerful entity” exists in the world at all? Can you demonstrate it to us? Can you demonstrate anything to us in the way that science can demonstrate the veracity of its claims? See this is what science doesn't do - it doesn't make claims it can't support.

It isn't a matter of taking "me" seriously.....all this evidence you point to is a matter of interpretation, by men who have already made up their minds about their findings.

What kind of interpretation do you think is going on that doesn’t support reality? Is it claims to unseen but powerful entities in the world that can’t be demonstrated? Nope, that’s your claim.

And why do you think all scientists are just reinforcing their own preconceptions? Is it because you’re projecting your own behaviors onto them? All I see you do is interpreting the Bible through your own filtered lens.

Their agenda will guarantee that they will find what they are looking for. Just like scripture, if the interpretation is wrong, you could find yourself working for the wrong "side".

How do you know you’re not interpreting scripture wrong? How can anybody really know that? It seems to me that your[/] agenda guarantees that you will find what you’re looking for. You display this every time you quote scripture and deny actual demonstrable evidence placed in front of you.

Being "religious" has nothing to do with anything....even the devil is a believer.

Where is evidence of this devil you speak of? And can you explain how it is that many Christians accept the theory of evolution even though you don’t? Let me guess, you’re going to tell me they’re not real Christians, but that you are.

No one is going to overturn the theory of evolution as long as the groundswell of the majority supports it.

Anyone could do it, given they were able to find the right evidence. Funny how that hasn’t happened yet. If it’s such bunk, it should be really easy.

By the way, the "groundswell of the majority supports it" because THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS. They have been convinced by the mountains of evidence that exist in favour of the theory of evolution.

Weight of numbers however, has little to do with something being correct. This is especially true with matters pertaining to Christianity. (Matt7:13, 14) Not many are on the road to life....most are on the other one, blissfully unaware of where they are headed. But that is their choice. (Matt 24:36-39)

Why are you throwing Bible quotes at me?

 

[outhouse]

You have no factual evidence at all.

Unsupported rhetoric.

Faith based Fanaticism and Fundamentalism do not help you take down academia and the facts it teaches in every credible university around the world because it goes against mythology

 

[outhouse]

.....all this evidence you point to is a matter of interpretation

Factually an error on your part.

 

[McBell]

First of all, why is a Bible reference relevant to this discussion or to me?

um...
A sad desperate attempt to use the Bible in support of her No True Scotsman?

 

[outhouse]

Can you demonstrate it to us?

Only mythology supports his position.

 

[McBell]

Why are you throwing Bible quotes at me?

Um...
She does not understand that Bible verses do not help an empty argument with those not in her choir?

 

[outhouse]

But I believe that men are easily led into beliefs that suit their own preferences and ego.

When someone with NO knowledge or education of a specific field of study, denounces it based on religious bias, it is known as fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Your only providing examples of such.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Except that the gospel of Matthew wasn't written in Hebrew. It never was.
a) The original gospel of Matthew was written anonymously, and it was only attributed to Matthew in the 2nd century CE. All 4 gospels were written anonymously. We only have church traditions that say they were written by these 4 evangelists.
b) If Matthew (or whoever wrote that gospel) had written in Hebrew, as you have claimed, then why do whenever the author quoted from OT texts, like Isaiah or Jeremiah, quote from the Greek Septuagint, and not from the texts in Hebrew?
I don't know much of church history, but how could Origen quoted something from Eusebius, if Eusebius flourished after Origen's time? Didn't Origen die before Eusebius was born?

In the 3rd century, Origen is quoted by Eusebius as saying the first was written according to Matthew who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew Language. - The Ecclesiastical History - VI,xxx,3-6

In his work De viris inlustribus chapter III, Jerome says Matthew (Levi) composed in the Hebrew language

Jerome added that the Hebrew text of Matthew's gospel was preserved in his day (4th century ) in the library that Pamphilus had collected in Caesarea.

Since God is the Author of the Holy Scriptures then we stand on the Word of God as His work. - 2nd Timothy 3 vs 16,17

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The way I see it is like this: Why the sun is shining every day and not once a week? Was it because the energy that the sun is giving us today is just for today and the energy for tomorrow from the sun is just the replenishment of the energy that we are using today.

...and isn't it interesting that the sun's heat does not get to the point of too much heat for earth or not enough heat for earth ?
And comforting the point that God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth - Revelation 11:18 B.

 

[outhouse]

In the 3rd century, Origen is quoted by Eusebius as saying the first was written according to Matthew who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew Language. - The Ecclesiastical History - VI,xxx,3-6

In his work De viris inlustribus chapter III, Jerome says Matthew (Levi) composed in the Hebrew language

Jerome added that the Hebrew text of Matthew's gospel was preserved in his day (4th century ) in the library that Pamphilus had collected in Caesarea.

Since God is the Author of the Holy Scriptures then we stand on the Word of God as His work. - 2nd Timothy 3 vs 16,17

So what.

That was 300 years later and based Papias remarks.

Your wrong please move on as you have been corrected multiple times on this.


Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew