Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

I am very serious.



That is right up there with "if a little is good, a lot must be better"......it's a lousy principle!



How about never?

Everything I have read points on the subject to evolution being a colossal fraud, based on biased interpretation of "evidence". No one can't prove that organic evolution ever took place.
Were you there to observe all these millions of beneficial mutations that resulted in all these fortunate results? Was any human? It is all speculation...nothing more.

Without eyewitnesses, all you have is circumstantial evidence.....which is subject to the leanings of the ones examining it. It is supposition about what "might have" taken place, but no one knows for certain, so how can it be called a fact. Ever been in a court of law and listened to those who use circumstantial evidence to try to pin something on someone who is innocent? It can be very convincing.



Thank you...I just love it when people post their proof.

Now tell me where in all those thousands of generations that these bacteria transformed themselves into anything other than bacteria. What you have here is adaptation within a "kind"......which has been described as "micro-evolution" but is really only minor changes in an organism to facilitate a change in their environment.

To quote from your link......

"But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski."

OK "something dramatic" seems to be an overstatement here. Pardon me whilst I quell my excitement!
Adaptive changes to accommodate a "second nutrient" must mean that the second nutrient was available to them in order to adapt to it.

Like the Galapogus creatures.....they adapted to a different food source than what was available to others of their species on the mainland, but they remained true to their "kind". These bacteria remained bacteria.



LOL.....Nice try...thank you for playing......you scored 0

LOL I scored an 11/10 as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure of your level of understanding or you comprehension of scientific evidence, but it's obviously quite low

Fine then. Refute it.

This is a debate correct? I present my argument and an opponent that dislikes tries to refute it.
So refute it.
Prove it false.
You must obviously know quite a large amount about scientific evidence to outright disregard it.

Ah, but that micro evolution point was good, I say blatantly lying.
A little more research is all you need for the answer to that
I'm not your science teacher so find it yourself.
Gosh, I hate it people deny evidence when it's slapping them upside the head

I'll be waiting for this reply, and if you give me a bible verse I swear I will somehow find a way to laugh in your face across the internet.

Peace.

P.S. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm disproving you. I couldn't care less about your opinion on science if I tried. This is all for me not to be bored ^-^

 

[Deathbydefault]

See the issue you have is that you debate science as though it were a religion, JayJay.

I assure there is quite a lot less corruption in our community than in yours.
I presented you with proof yet you deny that proof.

What happens when your own logic is used against you?
Your posts kinda just go away as speculation and rash claims.

Since you don't like playing fair I don't have to either right?
The 'if then' rule will be my counter.

If scientific facts are false then any argument you make with them is false.
Have you caught on?

You can't disprove me unless you can accept facts as facts, if it's all false to you then you can't use it to refute me.
Your logical argument is also highly flawed with petty jabs and halfway biased comments.

So what do you have?
"That's false" is all you have.
If you don't believe what I have to say then why do I have to believe what you say?

It's like we're 5 years old.

Get a reality check.
Just because some scientists screw with results for personal gain doesn't mean they're all bad.
Furthermore, they're lies are found out quickly enough, within 3 years as an average I believe.

That study is twice that amount. It also won him awards, if I remember correctly. It's been repeated a few times as well.
You deny facts thrown in your face in such a way, it almost disgusts me.

It's so easy to just identify you as a bigot.

I wonder if Jesus was a bigot too, the JW are supposed to model after him right?

Poor tastes.

Peace.

 

[Bunyip]

No Bunyip, the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not "testable" any more than organic evolution is testable by human means.

Why lie? Honestly? What is the point? Evolution is testable - you know that, you have been told that so many times.

You cannot test for something that took place millions of years ago with no reliable eyewitness testimony.

So what? You know that evolution can be observed right now, so what is the point of the denial?

Since no human was around to observe or to record the millions of 'creation' events, and we cannot duplicate them, or even produce the missing pieces of the supposed "chain" linking all living things.....we each have a belief system to which we adhere and trust the ones who promote it.

Do you even know what ID is?

 

[JayJayDee]

Why lie? Honestly? What is the point? Evolution is testable - you know that.

Evolution is NOT testable. Adaptation is testable....they are NOT the same.

you have been told that so many times

Been told by whom? People who have swallowed the evolution fraud hook, line and sinker? Who lies? Those who claim that organic evolution is an established fact. It never has been and never will be.

You have no doubt been "told" that God created all life on earth just the way it states in Genesis by those who believe in the Bible...does it cut any mustard with you? The claims of scientists cut no mustard with me.

So what? You know that evolution can be observed right now, so what is the point of the denial?

Adaptation can be observed right now...adaptation is NOT the same as organic evolution by a long shot. That is the point of the denial. There is no proof.....you know there's no proof or it would have been produced by now. Everything offered so far is based on supposition, not fact.

Do you even know what ID is?

In other people's definition of ID?.....I don't really care. I subscribe to what the Bible teaches, not what men teach.
The complex and intricate biological systems that operate in every part of the earth and in all living things is not the product of blind chance mutations. An intelligent designer is responsible for all the life forms we observe, including the microscopic ones.

 

[JayJayDee]

In the words of Arnie....I'll be back. Gotta go now.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I await your counter to me with great anticipation.
Have a fun time arguing someone that idiotically denies everything you say.

It'll almost be the same as looking in a mirror.

Peace, bigot.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You cannot test for something that took place millions of years ago with no reliable eyewitness testimony. Since no human was around to observe or to record the millions of 'creation' events, and we cannot duplicate them, or even produce the missing pieces of the supposed "chain" linking all living things.....we each have a belief system to which we adhere and trust the ones who promote it.

Except by looking at the fossil record and genetics - two things you seem to constantly ignore or dismiss. It's akin to a lawyer in a murder case saying "You can't say my client walked out of the room if nobody saw them do it", and when people show you the footprints left at the scene of the crime, show you that the footprints match the shoes the defendant was wearing that same day, and are able to accurately deduce the time at which the footprints were left match perfectly both with the time of the murder and a time when the defendant, who was supposedly at a partly across the street, disappeared abruptly from the party and returned ten minutes later, the lawyer says "Well, in spite of all that, nobody actually SAW them do it, so none of that stuff indicates anything."

The fossil record clearly shows a progression of simpler organisms diversifying over time as we ascend the geological strata. It shows species disappearing and then new species arising that bear similarities to the prior species - the only two possible explanations for this phenomenon are that the latter species evolved from the former, or that the former species randomly died and and a new, coincidentally similar species of animal appeared out of thin air to replace them. Genetics clearly show that humans have more similarity with our closer evolutionary ancestors than our more distant evolutionary ancestors, and that all living organisms still share a great deal of genetic information - which is EXACTLY what we would expect to find if life diversified from a common source. You cannot simply excuse this by saying "That's the way God made us, it doesn't mean we're related", because the opposite could have been true and you could still have said the same thing - only it would have thoroughly FALSIFIED evolution. You simply cannot chalk this up to pure coincidence that every piece of genetic and fossil evidence we have ever found has matched evolutionary predictions. We have the footprints, maybe it's time you stopped plugging your ears and covering your eyes and actually tried to understand that.

 

[JM2C]

That statement does not mean that they cannot be relied upon where good written records exist. The Bible is not a good written record by the way.

The Genealogy of my family can be traced back about 500 years reliably for direct ancestors with the family surname because reliable records exist in the UK. For another 500 years the records are patchy and not wholly reliable (as I said originally).

Beyond 1066 the genealogical history is very unreliable as there are no good records of births deaths and marriages.

IOW, if it’s about your genealogical record the china man’s statement does not apply to it. Read again china man’s statement.

That was my point to JM2C, genealogical history are unreliable. Family names get changed, over time. And I have no desire to be of royal line or ancestry.

but look at how irate this china man is

You're an arrogant b#$@@@@, are you?!

Putting words in my mouth, but that's just you being you, dishonest bloody Christian, with the tendencies to draw conclusions that are not there. You do that with science, you do it toward your own religion, and now you doing that to my posts.

NO china man you made a mistake when you said this “genealogical history are unreliable” and therefore blame it on me, like GENIUS, because it embarrassed you.

 

[JM2C]

You have just proven my points, that Christian apologist will use circular reasoning to reconcile 2 different versions of event.

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS:
In Luke’s account, it’s the SHEPHERDS WHO FOUND THE BABY/BREPHOS IN THE MANGER.

In Matthew’s account, it’s the Magi who saw the CHILD/PAIDION IN THE HOUSE.

IOW, two different occasions, i.e., one is with a baby in Luke’s, and the other one is with a child in Matthew’s. There is no other way to comprehend this.

“After coming into the HOUSE they saw the CHILD/PAIDION [and not a BABY/BREPHOS anymore in LUKE’S] with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” –Matt 2:11.

NOTICE that they were in the “HOUSE” and SAW THE CHILD/PAIDION” as not in the “MANGER” where the shepherds saw the “BABY/BREPHOS as He lay in the MANGER”. Can you tell the difference now? “HOUSE/MATTHEW” and “MANGER/LUKE”

“So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the BABY/BREPHOS as He lay in the manger.” Luke 2:16.

 

[JM2C]

Matthew never stated how old Jesus was, when the magi visited them and no age to Jesus when they left Bethlehem for Egypt. But you are trying to say a baby or infant is not a child is laughable. Matthew never disclosed Jesus' age, and when a baby it is a child.

Sorry, but when is a baby never a "child"?

You’re argument now is the age. Really?

Why would Herod search “male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity,from two years old and under”?
What is the “AND UNDER”? A baby in the manger? NO! A CHILD/PAIDION!

Herod was looking for a CHILD/PAIDION, "2 YEARS AND UNDER". DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Can you tell the difference between a 2 year old boy from an infant or a baby in a manger?

“Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.” –Matthew 2:16

 

[gnostic]

I only going to say this once, JM2C.

I want you to stop calling my "china man". Yes, I am Chinese, but your tone and the usage of it, is offensive and racist.

I have being brought up in Australia, so I have both Chinese and western cultures, but I have been subjected to racism, both in schools and as adult. And right now, I read the racist undertone with you using "china man". And racism is not allow here.

I don't want apology from you, because I know that I am not going to get it. Just don't call me "china man" again. I won't say this again.

 

[JM2C]

Another way of saying a woman is pregnant is to say "she is with child", and that's when the baby not being born yet. An unborn baby being called a child, and after the baby being born it is a child. A child doesn't denote any age, whether it be as infant, toddler or adolescent or a teenager.

You make me laugh when you think using word "child" doesn't mean a "baby".

Let see how far your ignorance can take you.

“she is with child” or “BE WITH CHILD” in Matthew 1:23 is “en gastri hexei” in Greek meaning “in womb will hold”. We didn’t SEE the word “CHILD/PAIDION”, did we?

MT 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”

Now, in Luke 2:5 “with CHILD” in Greek is “enkyo” –SG1471. Again, we didn’t SEE the word “CHILD/PAIDION”, did we?

LK 2:5 in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

In Luke 2:12 and 2:16 the word “BABY” in Greek is “BREPHOS” –SG1025, and in the NT it occurred 8 times only and all were referring to “newborn babies” and “infancy or babe”.

You know the most beautiful and perfect way to express this, the word “BABY/BREPHOS”, it never occurred in the Gospel of Matthew so that there will be no confusion between Luke’s “BABY/BREPHOS” and Matthew’s “CHILD/PAIDION”. That's how perfect and absolute the Word of God is.

 

[JM2C]

This was only made after you 1) Didn't reference the words in English with Hebrew and Greek then proceeded to ignore your error as if I didn't link you a lexicon with the very words themselves. So this was a conclusion since you ignored the very words in the verse.

I guess you have reading comprehension issues. Were you home-schooled or are you incompetent?

You forgot where this came from? Just click the arrow up and you’ll see.

 

[JM2C]

If you provided parameters I would have, sadly you did not. Again I pointed out a conclusion since you failed to actually ask a question and focus your argument. Beside your linked verse had nothing to do with a census thus is a red herring, illogical and irrelevant.

What a way to escape from an argument. Not related to the census? Really? We were never in anyway close to the OP’s so why complain now? You get into an argument with no full understanding of what or why you are getting into it and then start complaining when things get complicated, on things you can’t understand, and blaming me for your incompetence, and instead of shutting up you keep on justifying yourself. I need answers from those two verses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Me, thin-skin? No man! I was holding my patience as long as I can but when things get really hostile, by using insulting words, you and the china man gonna get the same dose of your own medicine, but I DON’T CRY LIKE A BABY AND HIT THE “REPORT” BUTTON, DO I? Now, whose skin is thinner again?

Their statements were justified. One was directed as a particular description of God, the other was provoked by your extremely dishonest debating tactics, twisting gnostic's words and bald-facedly lying about his statements.

Your continued use of racist language, on the other hand, is something else entirely.

 

[McBell]

Their statements were justified. One was directed as a particular description of God, the other was provoked by your extremely dishonest debating tactics, twisting gnostic's words and bald-facedly lying about his statements.

Your continued used of racist language, on the other hand, is something else entirely.

It is as though he wants to get banned.

Though I suspect he will take his getting banned as a sign he is closer to his god.

 

[viole]

Since God used the same raw materials in all of his earthly creation, why wonder that we see a similarity in genetic make up and even traits in animals that are very like our own? We all have the same Creator. We ARE like them in many ways.....the only thing that makes us different is our intellect and spiritual capacity. Being "made in God's image and likeness", humans alone possess abilities that animals do not. Morality for example is a uniquely human trait...as is the complex spoken and written language we take for granted. Humans alone have a concept of past, present and future...we can plan a future event based solely on our ability to predict the outcome of any situation and weigh up the options before acting.

We are creators like God......we make make works of art....compose music....poetry....theatre....all unique to us because it isn't programmed like instinct is in animals. We operate by free will. Animals are not endowed with any of those traits.

So the human 'animal' is unique among all creation. God was not inspired by gorillas but simply adding variety to his creation by making some posses similar traits to ourselves. Who isn't fascinated by monkeys? Who doesn't love the loyalty and affection of their dog? Who isn't inspired by the intellect of dolphins and their ability to mimic humans? Elephants demonstrate family attachments and mothers in nature take tender care of their young.

But when do we see animals appreciating anything intellectually? When was the last time you saw a cow admiring a sunset...or a wild animal consulting a recipe book for tonight's dinner?

Why does belief in a Creator depend on the stupid stance of creationists who dig their heels in and demand that the creative days were 24 hrs long? The Bible allows for the earth itself to be very ancient....million, even billions of years in fact. Living things appeared over vast ages of time, but not in the gradual sequence implied by evolution. The creative "days" may well have been epochs of time. Genesis says they had a beginning and an end......but God is not bound by earth time.

Living creatures and the systems that support them were designed and created to work beautifully and in a very self sustaining manner. No systems that humans use that interact and interconnect, appear by chance. They are designed and manufactured by extremely intelligent humans who can be congratulated for their achievements. But when it comes to the systems that form the natural world.....even more astoundingly complex and self replicating, we have no one to congratulate but the blind forces of evolution. Sorry...that is a no brainer for me.

Your fallacy consists in seing a mind first, based on the experience of the world. But there is no logical reason it being the case.

You say only minds create complex things. But we also have evidence that all minds we know of are created by complex things like DNA, which is, I hope you agree, unconscious. No DNA, no mind. You never saw a car or a computer without a mind that did it, but I never saw a mind without a chain of proteins operating under mechanical rules that did it.

To declare that only a mind can have done something that generates other minds, because the modus operandi of the produced minds is evidence that the originator must have been a mind as well, is obviously circular reasoning.

So, it is a chicken egg problem. You see mind first, I see physics first. But I have an edge. We have evidence that physics existed before minds and none whatsoever that minds predate matter.

So, it is logical where we should put our money.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JM2C]

Their statements were justified.

Of course you would say that. I would not argue with that.

One was directed as a particular description of God, the other was provoked by your extremely dishonest debating tactics, twisting gnostic's words and bald-facedly lying about his statements.

show me where?

Your continued used of racist language, on the other hand, is something else entirely.

Meaning when they stop cursing or using nasty words then I should stop until they start again and that’s the only time I could start again. It that what you meant?

 

[McBell]

Meaning when they stop cursing or using nasty words then I should stop until they start again and that’s the only time I could start again. It that what you meant?

there goes your alleged higher moral ground.

 

[JM2C]

It is as though he wants to get banned.

Though I suspect he will take his getting banned as a sign he is closer to his god.

When you can't win a debate you use nasty words and when it gets back to you, you start pointing fingers or hit the report button.