Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

You have no understanding of subjectivity and freedom, that is where your defining got you.

LMAO.
This is great.
We need to really show the world this stuff.
Take your last 50 or so comments and post em in a special section of the forums
"Don't be like this guy" would be the title.

Do you even understand why words are defined the way they are?
It's so they don't contradict, it's the most specific definition per term.

All you have are opinions, friend.
No matter what you may say, or what you may do, that's all they'll ever be.
Just spouted out opinions, said to people on the internet who know you're full of crap.

Eat a prune or two. Might help your arguments.

 

[sageowl]

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

A mind made up, well armored against any new ideas?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

LMAO.
This is great.
We need to really show the world this stuff.
Take your last 50 or so comments and post em in a special section of the forums
"Don't be like this guy" would be the title.

Do you even understand why words are defined the way they are?
It's so they don't contradict, it's the most specific definition per term.

All you have are opinions, friend.
No matter what you may say, or what you may do, that's all they'll ever be.
Just spouted out opinions, said to people on the internet who know you're full of crap.

Eat a prune or two. Might help your arguments.

That's right, you need to define things in a way that the meanings of the words don't contradict each other. And the only way you can do that is by creating separate categories for fact and opinion. And that you fail to have separate categories means that the meaning of the word fact and opinion contradict each other, and obviously it is then opinion which is the loser in this contradiction of terms. You have all but destroyed opinion to replace it completely with fact.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That's right, you need to define things in a way that the meanings of the words don't contradict each other. And the only way you can do that is by creating separate categories for fact and opinion. And that you fail to have separate categories means that the meaning of the word fact and opinion contradict each other, and obviously it is then opinion which is the loser in this contradiction of terms. You have all but destroyed opinion to replace it completely with fact.

And the issue with that is?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And the issue with that is?

The issue here is that you all support each other's complete and utter nonsense, just so you all each in your own way can continue to define choosing as sorting out the best result, using the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria, and enjoy the self-congratulation that comes with having done the best per definition every single time you made a decision.

It is not rational to question the validity of subjectivity altogether, there is just a question of the way subjectivity works, and how it can be defined in such a way as not to conflict with objectivity.

And that way is to attribute the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit which chooses, the existence of which spirit is a matter of opinion.

It is because with choosing there are alternative results available that new information is created with any decision. One cannot know which way a decision is going to turn out. And one cannot know as fact what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does. Facts are obtained by force, evidence forces to a conclusion. One cannot impose the logic of being forced to what is free. One cannot make the agency of a decision into a matter of fact issue, because then the force implied with facts, conflicts with the freedom in the decision. So the solution is simply to reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the answer. Then there is no conflict of terms. And that is how subjectivity is validated.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Using self created logic to justify outlandish claims will get you nowhere with me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Using self created logic to justify outlandish claims will get you nowhere with me.

That the spirit or soul chooses was the standard definition of free will prior to materialists, evolutionists, atheists etc. You can look it up, most times referred to as metaphysical libertarianism. And most people stil define choosing in terms of that it can turn out several different ways. You all are denying freedom is real, you are rejecting subjectivity, that is the outlandish position if you ask me.

It is just unconsciounable that you dont have any theory whatever about how things are chosen in the universe, and that at the same time you pretend to be the defenders of science. You are the destroyers of science, leading to the cataclysimic fall of science in relation to social darwinism in germany, italy and japan in world war 2.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That the spirit or soul chooses was the standard definition of free will prior to materialists, evolutionists, atheists etc. You can look it up, most times referred to as metaphysical libertarianism. You all are denying freedom is real, you are rejecting subjectivity, that is the outlandish position if you ask me.

It is just unconsciounable that you dont have any theory whatever about how things are chosen in the universe, and that at the same time you pretend to be the defenders of science. You are the destroyers of science, leading to the cataclysimic fall of science in relation to social darwinism in germany, italy and japan in world war 2.

I don't really give a rat's *** about freedom or subjectivity or free will.
Irrelevant to my mindset, I'm a cruel human being, I do not care for others.
But I am the opposite of 99.99% of any evolutionary theorist you will ever find.

Science does not fall, it simply "is".
You can preform science be scrapping two rocks together or eating a steak.
Your very body is explained by science.
Diseases, the earth, the universe, and almost everything microscopic.

The explanations are not vague or half-assed like how your book might be.
It's is absolutely disheartening that people still believe in things such as souls and Gods and the like.

Childish is a better word, get a reality check, figure out where you are right now.
You are this insignificant piece of flesh that can talk, move, read, write, and halfway think.
Stuck out on some rock orbiting a somewhat bigger rock that is on fire, in the middle of nowhere.
Yet here you sit, complaining about things you think you know about.

It would almost make me laugh if my pessimism wasn't present.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't really give a rat's *** about freedom or subjectivity or free will.
Irrelevant to my mindset, I'm a cruel human being, I do not care for others.
But I am the opposite of 99.99% of any evolutionary theorist you will ever find.

Science does not fall, it simply "is".
You can preform science be scrapping two rocks together or eating a steak.
Your very body is explained by science.
Diseases, the earth, the universe, and almost everything microscopic.

The explanations are not vague or half-assed like how your book might be.
It's is absolutely disheartening that people still believe in things such as souls and Gods and the like.

Childish is a better word, get a reality check, figure out where you are right now.
You are this insignificant piece of flesh that can talk, move, read, write, and halfway think.
Stuck out on some rock orbiting a somewhat bigger rock that is on fire, in the middle of nowhere.
Yet here you sit, complaining about things you think you know about.

It would almost make me laugh if my pessimism wasn't present.

That is just saying whatever in order to keep with your habit of self-congratulation by defining choosing as sorting out the best result. That is your motivation, and there is no idealism for science, which you actually destroy.

 

[JM2C]

No, that is Abiogenesis. "macro-evolution" is new species evolving from existing species - which is an observed fact.

You mean long series of microevolution is macroevolution?

 

[JM2C]

How can you say this:

After you have said this...

By your own explanation, eugenics is simply biological artificial selection, which is a principle that scientifically applies to evolutionary biology.

this is what I said: “but if one use the ideology eugenics, as the principles, to rearrange this PREEXISTING genetic information, then that is artificial selection” is the same as using the ideology, eugenics, as the principles, to eliminate the feeble-minded and advance the most highly evolved race.

 

[JM2C]

Au contraire.....it relies upon selective breeding, which is a long used method rooted in science.

Eugenic principles itself was not based on any science but only on Galton’s theory to better the human race, known as the “FIT”, and eliminate the “UNFIT”.

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But is it a good or bad idea?

That's more controversial.

was never a good idea..

 

[Deathbydefault]

That is just saying whatever in order to keep with your habit of self-congratulation by defining choosing as sorting out the best result. That is your motivation, and there is no idealism for science, which you actually destroy.

I don't care about myself either, I sustain within human reason to achieve my goals.
Once the goals are achieved I have no reason to be alive so I will either kill myself or cease my control over my mind.
That control is the reason why I am not on medication, btw.

Your second point is simply invalid, my motivation is science.
My want for what is known or can be known is the reason I am alive.
I was under the impression that "idealism" meant "perfection" or something.
How did I destroy a perfection for science?

 

[Revoltingest]

Eugenic principles itself was not based on any science but only on Galton’s theory to better the human race, known as the “FIT”, and eliminate the “UNFIT”.
was never a good idea..

I'd say it's a good idea, but fraught with peril (as we saw).
So I don't advocate it.
Still, selective breeding has a basis in science because it's testable & falsifiable.
This is not to say that eugenics itself was sound science.

 

[David M]

"Success" "quality" "better" would be the emotive words..

They are not emotive words, especially when you don't misuse them.

"Reproductive success" simply means "has offspring that survive".
"Quality" means "an attribute or characteristic possessed by something"
"better" means "more effective"

But where is your claim that NS says that things "Like to survive"?

 

[David M]

That's right, you need to define things in a way that the meanings of the words don't contradict each other. And the only way you can do that is by creating separate categories for fact and opinion. And that you fail to have separate categories means that the meaning of the word fact and opinion contradict each other, and obviously it is then opinion which is the loser in this contradiction of terms. You have all but destroyed opinion to replace it completely with fact.

In common usage (after all you do love to claim that we should follow "common discourse") FACT AND OPINION DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. The terms cover different concepts. How many times do people have to tell this before you finally go and use a proper dictionary.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't care about myself either, I sustain within human reason to achieve my goals.
Once the goals are achieved I have no reason to be alive so I will either kill myself or cease my control over my mind.
That control is the reason why I am not on medication, btw.

Your second point is simply invalid, my motivation is science.
My want for what is known or can be known is the reason I am alive.
I was under the impression that "idealism" meant "perfection" or something.
How did I destroy a perfection for science?

You ignore all the facts, science, about how things are chosen.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You ignore all the facts, science, about how things are chosen.

Blatant lie.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

They are not emotive words, especially when you don't misuse them.

"Reproductive success" simply means "has offspring that survive".
"Quality" means "an attribute or characteristic possessed by something"
"better" means "more effective"

But where is your claim that NS says that things "Like to survive"?

That is the the way that it is phrased and interpreted by all evolutionists. Same as with the example of the rocks it is interpreted that rocks like to roll down the hill, by noting it as success quality better etc..

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Blatant lie.

What way are organisms chosen to be the way they are then? And that means you have to describe in terms of that it actually can turn out different ways.It means you cannot describe in terms of that they are forced to turn out the way the do.