The flaws in Intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

Abiogenesis was conclusively proven false a long, long time ago, sorry . . .

No it was not. You probably mean the creationist idea of spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.

 

[dianaiad]

The problem is that you are not applying your definitions consistently.

I know The fact that your beliefs are not rational bothers you. Perhaps you might want to reconsider them.

You 'know' that, do you?

Well, that's more than I know. Would you care to explain how you 'know' this?

..........and I'm extremely consistent with my terms and the application of them. However, you are quite free to explain how you think I'm not. Most of those reasons will come down to 'I didn't read your post," but hey. You made the claim. It's your job to support it.

As for reconsidering my beliefs, well....I don't see any other religious belief system that is as rational (as in, 'fits together logically')mine, as well as that subjective evidence that I can't 'transfer' to you or really show you. I can tell you about my experiences, and show you how to get your own, but that's it.

.......and that is not objective or empirical, and I'm just fine with that.

 

[dianaiad]

Pretty much just a long excuse.


Let me.remind you that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a positive claim.

Absolutely.

Which is why my claim is simply "I believe." The proof for that is equally simple. I say it. "I believe."

If I were to claim "my beliefs are based upon the TRUTH, by George, and you need to believe it too..." then yeah, the burden of proving that the things I believe to be true ARE true lies on me.

But that's not what I claimed, is it?

YOU are equivocating here. You are making a highly illogical argument, and committing fallacy after fallacy even as you accuse me of committing them.

That, of course, and the fact that you are committing eisegesis with a great deal of verve.

 

[Jollybear]

In a literal sense? In a literal sense it is a polymer, with the monomer composed of a phosphate backbone, a sugar group and one of four nucleotides; adenine, thymine, guanine or cytosine. You did ask.

Ok, next questions. What do the nucleotides do or what is there purpose? And how are they pared?

The key point is that it is not a language.

Well, francis callins (leader of human genome project) disagrees.

Everything.

All the facts that support a claim is a nice general idea. They must be objective

Whats objective?

and allow another to arrive at the same conclusion unambiguously.

Can humans do anything unambiguously? Im not kidding, can they?

Evidence must fit the explanation of the evidence.

Ooooh, nice one. I agree.

Pretty trees, mountains, lovely sunsets and babbling brooks are evidence of something, but they are not objective evidence for a designer in a way that anyone could come to the same conclusions. It does not matter what I believe about those things, but only what I can demonstrate with them.

Do you BELIEVE Pretty trees, mountains, lovely sunsets and babbling brooks are designed of God?

I was speaking in the general sense. Are you saying that crazy people cannot be Christians or that Christians cannot be crazy?

Depends on what you mean by crazy. To be a TRUE christian has meaning.

I only have your word on it, but that's nice.

Popularity of an idea does not make that idea correct.

I didnt say popularity of an idea makes it correct. My point was that alot of religious folk accept ID and there NOT crazy. There decent, good, productive people.

There are a lot of people that do not accept the claim of ID either.

I didnt say everyone accepts ID.

You mix the intelligent design movement up with a claim of the existence of God as an intelligent designer. You do not seem capable of keeping the two distinct. I have no issue with someone thinking God is an intelligent designer. I do have issues with the intelligent design movement and their claims that their religious views are science. It is not science. It is religion.

See, this is where im not understanding you. If you believe God IS the intelligent designer, then why the inconsistency by saying its not science? Is science about reality or not? Is God designing the world, reality or not?

No. It absolutely is not relevant to the discussion. I would be against the intelligent design movement regardless of my belief. It is only of interest to you, since you cannot develop a cogent argument that intelligent design is science, so you want to use whatever you can about your opponent to attack them. That is not very Christian.

No, your absolutely wrong there. I can and do make my arguments. But im questioning your consistency because its inconsistent. If youl notice i only do that with you, none of the others who are atheists have i done this, because there consistent.

I am not a fool and know that I cannot objectively support a claim of the existence of God. No one can.

Revelation, revelation! I never said PROOF, i said evidence and logical inference. Also no one can support (prove) the claim the universe and life came from unguided forces EITHER, do you understand that?

No one ever has. This does not mean that people have not had experiences that are divine or felt God. But those people cannot show that they have. I cannot show it. I can believe and I do, but unlike many that cannot differentiate between what is supportable and what is not, I recognize that my belief is not supported by any evidence that does not have an alternate explanation.

Your using the word evidence in the same sense as one would use the word proof. Theres evidence of Intelligent design but not proof.

You do not understand that. I do not think that you ever will. You are entirely operating on your emotions, with little input from your intellect when it comes to belief.

Thats absolutely wrong. Im not operating on my emotions. I ACTUALLY, REALLY DO see design.

The paper explained why DNA is not a language. You did not seem to get very much out of any of it.

The intro and conclusion admitted they dont know. That part i comprehended.

Thank you for that confession.

It wasnt a confession, its something im proud of. You cant confess what your proud of. Confession implies shame. Im not ashamed to say i have a childlike mindset.

It explains a lot. I will modify my future posts following this one to more appropriately address you.

Good, hopefully now ill be able to understand you in future posts.

Were you not the one claiming that DNA is a language? You were.

Francis callins did and i recited him.

Where is your defense of that? I provided you with the information, you figure it out and then come back with your defense of your claim. How about that? You think you can help the rest of us out here fella? Give it a whirl. Do not go too fast, so that you can get a feel for what defending your position with a reasoned, logical, well supported argument is like.

What exactly can i say about the article you gave me other then its intro and conclusion admit no knowledge. As for its body, i dont get there mumbo jumbo. I gauss since its a science paper they gotta come up with some stuff to say. Do they get money for publishing these papers or something?

It is a scientific paper. It is not the authors fault that you do not have the requisite background to understand it.

Yes it is the authors fault, speak to the street folk.

If you were in Italy, you would be whining about how it was the Italians fault you could not understand them. That is a very, very lame excuse.

No its not lame. Speak to the laymen.

How. They are probably completely unaware of my use of it in this one instance. How do you know they did not know much? You said you did not understand it. Were you lying about that?

I understood the introduction and the conclusion. I did not understand the body.

How do you arrive at these conclusions that are completely at odds with your other previous statements. You have been ranting about how you did not understand it and begging me to read it to you like a child. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Here it is, listen for it: break down the body of the paper for me. Not the intro or conclusion. The body is what i need you to break down.

Let us see. There is reading comprehension, which you are having a lot of trouble with. Then there is comprehending what you see. We can call that visual comprehension. We should include comprehension of what is heard. Call that auditory comprehension. How about what we feel by touch. Tactile comprehension? Sure. Why not. How do you think blind people read? You have something aginst them too? We could probably associate it with taste and smell as well. Sounds like there is more than one kind of comprehension and thus more than one kind of incomprehension associated with those.

I am having trouble seeing that you can comprehend the truth.

You can comprehend if a statement is true or false. I do not think you comprehend the definition of comprehend.

Simple question for you. If an idea is false, can it be understood as true? Yes or no answer will suffice.

Human intelligence. That is all we can say about that.

So, theres only experience of intelligence behind ciphers then your saying and no experiences of none intelligence?

It has no validity in or as science.

There is evidence supporting natural causes. There is none for supernatural causes. It is that simple. You will never understand that.

So, there is evidence that DNA originated from none intelligence you say? Theres evidence the universe came from natural none intelligent forces you say?

Coming from someone who says they believe God made it all on top of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You 'know' that, do you?

Well, that's more than I know. Would you care to explain how you 'know' this?

..........and I'm extremely consistent with my terms and the application of them. However, you are quite free to explain how you think I'm not. Most of those reasons will come down to 'I didn't read your post," but hey. You made the claim. It's your job to support it.

As for reconsidering my beliefs, well....I don't see any other religious belief system that is as rational (as in, 'fits together logically')mine, as well as that subjective evidence that I can't 'transfer' to you or really show you. I can tell you about my experiences, and show you how to get your own, but that's it.

.......and that is not objective or empirical, and I'm just fine with that.

We have gone over this so many times. You keep trying to redefine reliable evidence. The abuse of dictionary definitions did not help you since you relied on definitions of "evidence" and not the term with the qualifier. Subjective evidence, the evidence that you rely on, is not reliable since it is only evidence for you. A person could "prove" almost anything by those standards. The Muslim God is just as real to the Hindu God or God, is just as real to the Christian God to believers but all of these gods contradict one another. That means that they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. To be reliable it needs to be acceptable regardless of source or observer. All that is required is some basic honesty.

You yourself have admitted that your evidence would not convince another, therefore it is hardly reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absolutely.

Which is why my claim is simply "I believe." The proof for that is equally simple. I say it. "I believe."

If I were to claim "my beliefs are based upon the TRUTH, by George, and you need to believe it too..." then yeah, the burden of proving that the things I believe to be true ARE true lies on me.

But that's not what I claimed, is it?

YOU are equivocating here. You are making a highly illogical argument, and committing fallacy after fallacy even as you accuse me of committing them.

That, of course, and the fact that you are committing eisegesis with a great deal of verve.

Then do not bridle so when it is explained how your beliefs are not rational. A person may believe something and still know that it is an irrational belief.

And no, I have not been making fallacy after fallacy. I have seen you misinterpret peoples posts time after time. Do you remember how we went around and around due to your claiming to accepting ID when it was clear that you did not? The term has a definition and a history. You ignored those. Others had the same problem with your claims since you used the term ID improperly. Do you need the sources on what ID is again? On its history? How it was shown to be creationism pretending to be science in the Dover trial? That was the sort of belief that you opposed. What you actually believe in is theistic evolution. There is a big difference between the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for fun ID:

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States."

Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design

' But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled." '

There is more but one key aspect of intelligent design is "Irreducible Complexity" The claim that some traits could not have evolved without outside intervention. The problem is that all examples chosen were merely problems on the cutting edge of sciences at that time. Problems on the cutting edge of science gain attention because they are active areas of research and as happens with many of them every example of "Irreducible Complexity" that were named at the time of the Dover trial were already explained.

On the other hand theistic evolution tends is the Hamburger Helper approach. It could have happened naturally but God had a goal and he guided evolution. Since it is so vague there is no evidence for it, but on the up side since it is so vague there is no evidence against it either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, next questions. What do the nucleotides do or what is there purpose? And how are they pared?



Well, francis callins (leader of human genome project) disagrees.



Whats objective?



Can humans do anything unambiguously? Im not kidding, can they?



Ooooh, nice one. I agree.



Do you BELIEVE Pretty trees, mountains, lovely sunsets and babbling brooks are designed of God?



Depends on what you mean by crazy. To be a TRUE christian has meaning.



I didnt say popularity of an idea makes it correct. My point was that alot of religious folk accept ID and there NOT crazy. There decent, good, productive people.



I didnt say everyone accepts ID.



See, this is where im not understanding you. If you believe God IS the intelligent designer, then why the inconsistency by saying its not science? Is science about reality or not? Is God designing the world, reality or not?



No, your absolutely wrong there. I can and do make my arguments. But im questioning your consistency because its inconsistent. If youl notice i only do that with you, none of the others who are atheists have i done this, because there consistent.



Revelation, revelation! I never said PROOF, i said evidence and logical inference. Also no one can support (prove) the claim the universe and life came from unguided forces EITHER, do you understand that?



Your using the word evidence in the same sense as one would use the word proof. Theres evidence of Intelligent design but not proof.



Thats absolutely wrong. Im not operating on my emotions. I ACTUALLY, REALLY DO see design.



The intro and conclusion admitted they dont know. That part i comprehended.



It wasnt a confession, its something im proud of. You cant confess what your proud of. Confession implies shame. Im not ashamed to say i have a childlike mindset.



Good, hopefully now ill be able to understand you in future posts.



Francis callins did and i recited him.



What exactly can i say about the article you gave me other then its intro and conclusion admit no knowledge. As for its body, i dont get there mumbo jumbo. I gauss since its a science paper they gotta come up with some stuff to say. Do they get money for publishing these papers or something?



Yes it is the authors fault, speak to the street folk.



No its not lame. Speak to the laymen.



I understood the introduction and the conclusion. I did not understand the body.



Here it is, listen for it: break down the body of the paper for me. Not the intro or conclusion. The body is what i need you to break down.



Simple question for you. If an idea is false, can it be understood as true? Yes or no answer will suffice.



So, theres only experience of intelligence behind ciphers then your saying and no experiences of none intelligence?



So, there is evidence that DNA originated from none intelligence you say? Theres evidence the universe came from natural none intelligent forces you say?

Coming from someone who says they believe God made it all on top of it?

Are you doing an interview? There is too much stuff here for me to be bothered answering every point. If you know the nucleotides are paired, then why the chicanery?

All you are trying to do here is persecute me for my belief and attack me, because you do not understand the difference between belief and what can be demonstrated. I wonder if you ever will.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, next questions. What do the nucleotides do or what is there purpose? And how are they pared?



Well, francis callins (leader of human genome project) disagrees.



Whats objective?



Can humans do anything unambiguously? Im not kidding, can they?



Ooooh, nice one. I agree.



Do you BELIEVE Pretty trees, mountains, lovely sunsets and babbling brooks are designed of God?



Depends on what you mean by crazy. To be a TRUE christian has meaning.



I didnt say popularity of an idea makes it correct. My point was that alot of religious folk accept ID and there NOT crazy. There decent, good, productive people.



I didnt say everyone accepts ID.



See, this is where im not understanding you. If you believe God IS the intelligent designer, then why the inconsistency by saying its not science? Is science about reality or not? Is God designing the world, reality or not?



No, your absolutely wrong there. I can and do make my arguments. But im questioning your consistency because its inconsistent. If youl notice i only do that with you, none of the others who are atheists have i done this, because there consistent.



Revelation, revelation! I never said PROOF, i said evidence and logical inference. Also no one can support (prove) the claim the universe and life came from unguided forces EITHER, do you understand that?



Your using the word evidence in the same sense as one would use the word proof. Theres evidence of Intelligent design but not proof.



Thats absolutely wrong. Im not operating on my emotions. I ACTUALLY, REALLY DO see design.



The intro and conclusion admitted they dont know. That part i comprehended.



It wasnt a confession, its something im proud of. You cant confess what your proud of. Confession implies shame. Im not ashamed to say i have a childlike mindset.



Good, hopefully now ill be able to understand you in future posts.



Francis callins did and i recited him.



What exactly can i say about the article you gave me other then its intro and conclusion admit no knowledge. As for its body, i dont get there mumbo jumbo. I gauss since its a science paper they gotta come up with some stuff to say. Do they get money for publishing these papers or something?



Yes it is the authors fault, speak to the street folk.



No its not lame. Speak to the laymen.



I understood the introduction and the conclusion. I did not understand the body.



Here it is, listen for it: break down the body of the paper for me. Not the intro or conclusion. The body is what i need you to break down.



Simple question for you. If an idea is false, can it be understood as true? Yes or no answer will suffice.



So, theres only experience of intelligence behind ciphers then your saying and no experiences of none intelligence?



So, there is evidence that DNA originated from none intelligence you say? Theres evidence the universe came from natural none intelligent forces you say?

Coming from someone who says they believe God made it all on top of it?

Tell Francis Collins to stop by and he and I can discuss it. I have not met him yet, but he seems to believe in much the same way that I do.

Is your argument in here? I did not see it.

Are you going to make your argument out telepathically?

Are you going to conflate every discussion of DNA and evolution to include the origin of the universe that I was not talking about?

I still have not received your telepathic message. You may not have enough bars. Try using some tinfoil to boost the signal.

 

[Jollybear]

Are you doing an interview? There is too much stuff here for me to be bothered answering every point. If you know the nucleotides are paired, then why the chicanery?

What is the purpose of the nucleotides and how are they paired?

All you are trying to do here is persecute me for my belief and attack me,

There is no persecution of you or attacking your belief, there is only pointing out an inconsistency and a demand for why that is. Persecution is all in your head.

If you wanna see persecution and attack of your beliefs, go look at the threads of skwim.

because you do not understand the difference between belief and what can be demonstrated. I wonder if you ever will.

I understand the difference between proof and evidence. Do you?

 

[Jollybear]

Tell Francis Collins to stop by and he and I can discuss it. I have not met him yet, but he seems to believe in much the same way that I do.

Is your argument in here? I did not see it.

Are you going to make your argument out telepathically?

Are you going to conflate every discussion of DNA and evolution to include the origin of the universe that I was not talking about?

I still have not received your telepathic message. You may not have enough bars. Try using some tinfoil to boost the signal.

Ok, so you agree with francis callins that the DNA is the language of God?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, so you agree with francis callins that the DNA is the language of God?

I did not take his statement as literal. What does that mean objectively? Francis Collins is not an ID proponent. He is not trying to sell his belief as science. He was being figurative. He understands science and what he can demonstrate and what he cannot demonstrate. You could learn a great deal from him, besides taking his figurative statements and trying to turn them into some literal truth.

 

[dianaiad]

We have gone over this so many times. You keep trying to redefine reliable evidence. The abuse of dictionary definitions did not help you since you relied on definitions of "evidence" and not the term with the qualifier. Subjective evidence, the evidence that you rely on, is not reliable since it is only evidence for you. A person could "prove" almost anything by those standards. The Muslim God is just as real to the Hindu God or God, is just as real to the Christian God to believers but all of these gods contradict one another. That means that they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. To be reliable it needs to be acceptable regardless of source or observer. All that is required is some basic honesty.

You yourself have admitted that your evidence would not convince another, therefore it is hardly reliable.

No, SZ. I am not attempting to redefine anything, except perhaps to drag you back to the dictionary definition of the words...you know, the way everybody but you defines them? In this matter it is you who are redefining things in ways that simply do not match.

it is not I who am committing the fallacy of composition, insisting that if evidence isn't objective, it isn't evidence.

It is not I who am redefining the word 'reliable.' That's you. In fact, I am being very careful to use specific, dictionary definitions for the words I use. There is no ambiguity or equivocation in my wording. That's all you. Sorry...

 

[dianaiad]

Then do not bridle so when it is explained how your beliefs are not rational. A person may believe something and still know that it is an irrational belief.

I am 'bridling?" Well, if there was any further evidence required to prove that you don't actually read my posts, this post of yours would be it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is the purpose of the nucleotides and how are they paired?



There is no persecution of you or attacking your belief, there is only pointing out an inconsistency and a demand for why that is. Persecution is all in your head.

If you wanna see persecution and attack of your beliefs, go look at the threads of skwim.



I understand the difference between proof and evidence. Do you?

My beliefs are consistent. It is yours that I find inconsistent, along with your views of the world around you. You do not distinguish between what is real and what you imagine to be real. You can believe what you like. You say you are a Christian and I accept that. Your Christianity is not relevant to the discussion of ID, since you yourself have said that the designer could be any agent. Or is that not true?

You clearly do not understand science and I do not have a lifetime to teach you. Do your own work.

How are those arguments for your many claims that you have left unsupported going? Do you think we will be reading any objective, reasoned and logical arguments from you any time soon?

 

[Jollybear]

I did not take his statement as literal.

How do you know he did not mean it literally? Does he believe in God literally or is his belief in God metaphor as well? Mayby he thinks God is a metaphor and not truely real either then?

What does that mean objectively? Francis Collins is not an ID proponent.

Now, this is where it gets REAL complicated.

Look here at this speach of his > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAJegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3IqXx_BoO38MvJolXPDz4A

If youl notice he does say ID is interesting. But, he feares it may be wrong in its predictions. He also says jhe us a theistic evolutionist. Then says God DESIGNED the PROCESS to be this way.

Did ya catch that?

He is not trying to sell his belief as science. He was being figurative.

So is God figurative? Or is God real? And NO im not attacking your belief, im asking you a simple question.

He understands science and what he can demonstrate and what he cannot demonstrate. You could learn a great deal from him, besides taking his figurative statements and trying to turn them into some literal truth.

Refer to my questions above.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you know he did not mean it literally? Does he believe in God literally or is his belief in God metaphor as well? Mayby he thinks God is a metaphor and not truely real either then?



Now, this is where it gets REAL complicated.

Look here at this speach of his > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_0qy6U-Rtk&ved=2ahUKEwjOiNTe2t_gAhUFJt8KHXlMArUQFjAJegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3IqXx_BoO38MvJolXPDz4A

If youl notice he does say ID is interesting. But, he feares it may be wrong in its predictions. He also says jhe us a theistic evolutionist. Then says God DESIGNED the PROCESS to be this way.

Did ya catch that?



So is God figurative? Or is God real? And NO im not attacking your belief, im asking you a simple question.



Refer to my questions above.

You are a typical creationist. You twist the words of others and make straw man arguments.

I did not say anything about his belief. You twisted what I said to that. That was not my doing. I do not know what his views about God are. I know what he said about DNA and that it is based on his personal views and is figurative. It is not based on his scientific views. He did not include that in any scientific reports about the human genome.

Why do you have to resort to these petty tactics? I thought you said you were a Christian.

 

[Jollybear]

My beliefs are consistent. It is yours that I find inconsistent, along with your views of the world around you. You do not distinguish between what is real and what you imagine to be real. You can believe what you like. You say you are a Christian and I accept that. Your Christianity is not relevant to the discussion of ID, since you yourself have said that the designer could be any agent. Or is that not true?

Are ypu able to HEAR? I believe the intelligence for the universe is God. I believe God gave a role to angels or extra terestrials to make mankind.

But, ID is science because it DETECTS information/design in the PHYSICAL world. It does not detect WHO the intelligence is.

Is this so hard to understand? My writing is not complicated like that paper you gave me now.

You clearly do not understand science and I do not have a lifetime to teach you. Do your own work.

Yea, cop out. Why dont you start by answering some simple questions. Like, whats the purpose of the nucleotides on the DNA ladder? And how are they paired. Come on mr science man!

How are those arguments for your many claims that you have left unsupported going? Do you think we will be reading any objective, reasoned and logical arguments from you any time soon?

Refer above.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you know he did not mean it literally? Does he believe in God literally or is his belief in God metaphor as well? Mayby he thinks God is a metaphor and not truely real either then?



Now, this is where it gets REAL complicated.

Look here at this speach of his > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_0qy6U-Rtk&ved=2ahUKEwjOiNTe2t_gAhUFJt8KHXlMArUQFjAJegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3IqXx_BoO38MvJolXPDz4A

If youl notice he does say ID is interesting. But, he feares it may be wrong in its predictions. He also says jhe us a theistic evolutionist. Then says God DESIGNED the PROCESS to be this way.

Did ya catch that?



So is God figurative? Or is God real? And NO im not attacking your belief, im asking you a simple question.



Refer to my questions above.

Your questions are relative only to attacking my belief. They have nothing to do with Francis Collins' statement or whether DNA is a language. You seem to turn this way when others do not just jump on your every word and agree with you without question.

Why don't you just let it go? You are not going to suddenly understand science or the difference between belief and what can be supported objectively and I understand that.

 

[Jollybear]

You are a typical creationist. You twist the words of others and make straw man arguments.

I did not say anything about his belief. You twisted what I said to that. That was not my doing. I do not know what his views about God are. I know what he said about DNA and that it is based on his personal views and is figurative.

And how do you know it was figurative? He said in the video i gave you that God DESIGNED the evolutionary system.

Also is your God real or figurative?

It is not based on his scientific views. He did not include that in any scientific reports about the human genome.

Why do you have to resort to these petty tactics? I thought you said you were a Christian.

Oh i see, so he has two views about God? One that says God designed the evelutionary system and DNA is the language of God and then he has another view that says the oposite?

Do i got that right? Your calling the man schizophrenic?