Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What is the truth about the evidence for intelligent design creationism?
160 views
Skip to first unread message
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 8:40:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/11/in-the-evolution-debate-how-truth-can-prevail/
The ID perps have an article up claiming that the truth will prevail.
QUOTE:
Paul Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design.
END QUOTE:
As expected the article doesn't have much about the "truth" that should be publicly told.
Not even the ID perps can deal with their Top Six in a straightforward and honest manner. They put up the Top Six back in Nov. 2017 when they were running the last bait and switch scam on the Utah creationist rubes. This is claimed to be their best evidence for intelligent design.
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
Sewell took another look at the Top Six recently, and like Pags didn't like them that much and dropped out a couple (Behe's IC didn't make the cut), and he ordered what was left in their order of importance to IDiocy. Essentially, he scambled them to make it easier for IDiots to lie to themselves about them one at a time.
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
QUOTE:
Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
END QUOTE:
It should be noted that the ID perps bent over backwards in order to never claim that the Top Six was "scientific evidence" for intelligent design when they put them out in 2017. My guess is that Sewell didn't get that memo, and doesn't care that he is lying about the IDiot Top Six.
1. The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of Our Universe
3. The Origin of Life
4. The Evolution of Humans
5. The Origin of Human Consciousness
6. The Beginning of Time
Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's Cambrian explosion idiocy got dropped from the Top Six. Probably because Sewell didn't want to deal with things that happened a billion years apart for IC, and he didn't want to understand anything about what happened over half a billion years ago during the Cambrian periiod.
The fine tuning claptrap got divided up so that you don't have to think about the 8 billion years between the two god-of-the-gaps bits of stupidity, and he divided human evolution into two separate events so that the IDiots no longer have to think about what is between the previous gaps in the human fossil record. The Big Bang likely only was retained on the Top Six list because it is the best evidence for a creation event that science has come up with. It just isn't the creation event that most IDiots want to believe in.
There seems to be a reluctance to tell the truth about the best evidence for IDiocy, but it is the IDiots that are imposing that restriction on themselves. This isn't a free speech issue, but just the fact that the IDiots don't want that speech out there. IDiots can't deal with the truth about the evidence for IDiocy. There hasn't been a single IDiot posting to TO that can deal with the Top Six as the best evidence for IDiocy, and they have had 3 years to do it. My guess is that their best efforts wouldn't be any better than Sewell's scrambled mess that allows him to lie about them to himself and anyone that bothered to read the junk.
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps have an article up claiming that the truth will prevail.
QUOTE:
Paul Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design.
END QUOTE:
As expected the article doesn't have much about the "truth" that should be publicly told.
Not even the ID perps can deal with their Top Six in a straightforward and honest manner. They put up the Top Six back in Nov. 2017 when they were running the last bait and switch scam on the Utah creationist rubes. This is claimed to be their best evidence for intelligent design.
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
Sewell took another look at the Top Six recently, and like Pags didn't like them that much and dropped out a couple (Behe's IC didn't make the cut), and he ordered what was left in their order of importance to IDiocy. Essentially, he scambled them to make it easier for IDiots to lie to themselves about them one at a time.
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
QUOTE:
Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
END QUOTE:
It should be noted that the ID perps bent over backwards in order to never claim that the Top Six was "scientific evidence" for intelligent design when they put them out in 2017. My guess is that Sewell didn't get that memo, and doesn't care that he is lying about the IDiot Top Six.
1. The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of Our Universe
3. The Origin of Life
4. The Evolution of Humans
5. The Origin of Human Consciousness
6. The Beginning of Time
Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's Cambrian explosion idiocy got dropped from the Top Six. Probably because Sewell didn't want to deal with things that happened a billion years apart for IC, and he didn't want to understand anything about what happened over half a billion years ago during the Cambrian periiod.
The fine tuning claptrap got divided up so that you don't have to think about the 8 billion years between the two god-of-the-gaps bits of stupidity, and he divided human evolution into two separate events so that the IDiots no longer have to think about what is between the previous gaps in the human fossil record. The Big Bang likely only was retained on the Top Six list because it is the best evidence for a creation event that science has come up with. It just isn't the creation event that most IDiots want to believe in.
There seems to be a reluctance to tell the truth about the best evidence for IDiocy, but it is the IDiots that are imposing that restriction on themselves. This isn't a free speech issue, but just the fact that the IDiots don't want that speech out there. IDiots can't deal with the truth about the evidence for IDiocy. There hasn't been a single IDiot posting to TO that can deal with the Top Six as the best evidence for IDiocy, and they have had 3 years to do it. My guess is that their best efforts wouldn't be any better than Sewell's scrambled mess that allows him to lie about them to himself and anyone that bothered to read the junk.
Ron Okimoto
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 9:00:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It should be obvious to anyone that the people who throw out emotions / opinion, choice /free will, are the bad guys.
When you tell your brain that creationism is not true, then you throw out all of category no 1, in which are emotions, God, the soul, and the concept of subjective opinion. You also throw out choice, on which the entire conceptual scheme hinges.
All you are left with is, material / fact.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / fact
And the evidence supports that evolutionists deny free will. The evidence supports that evolutionists throw out the concept of subjective opinion. If evolutionists accepted free will as a reality of physics, then what I say here, would not be true. But the fact is the evolutionists throw it out, en masse, and what I say is true.
p zondag 22 november 2020 om 14:40:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
When you tell your brain that creationism is not true, then you throw out all of category no 1, in which are emotions, God, the soul, and the concept of subjective opinion. You also throw out choice, on which the entire conceptual scheme hinges.
All you are left with is, material / fact.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / fact
And the evidence supports that evolutionists deny free will. The evidence supports that evolutionists throw out the concept of subjective opinion. If evolutionists accepted free will as a reality of physics, then what I say here, would not be true. But the fact is the evolutionists throw it out, en masse, and what I say is true.
p zondag 22 november 2020 om 14:40:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 9:30:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 8:00:27 AM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It should be obvious to anyone that the people who throw out emotions / opinion, choice /free will, are the bad guys.
>
> When you tell your brain that creationism is not true, then you throw out all of category no 1, in which are emotions, God, the soul, and the concept of subjective opinion. You also throw out choice, on which the entire conceptual scheme hinges.
>
> All you are left with is, material / fact.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact
>
> And the evidence supports that evolutionists deny free will. The evidence supports that evolutionists throw out the concept of subjective opinion. If evolutionists accepted free will as a reality of physics, then what I say here, would not be true. But the fact is the evolutionists throw it out, en masse, and what I say is true.
What is obvious is that you, like all the other IDiots, can't face the truth, and free speech isn't going to do you any good because you would refuse to listen to the truth even if the ID perps were willing to tell the truth.
> It should be obvious to anyone that the people who throw out emotions / opinion, choice /free will, are the bad guys.
>
> When you tell your brain that creationism is not true, then you throw out all of category no 1, in which are emotions, God, the soul, and the concept of subjective opinion. You also throw out choice, on which the entire conceptual scheme hinges.
>
> All you are left with is, material / fact.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact
>
> And the evidence supports that evolutionists deny free will. The evidence supports that evolutionists throw out the concept of subjective opinion. If evolutionists accepted free will as a reality of physics, then what I say here, would not be true. But the fact is the evolutionists throw it out, en masse, and what I say is true.
Ron Okimoto
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 9:40:28 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The denial of free will is equivalent to the skull on the ss uniform. You can easily know you are the bad guy, when you have a skull so prominently on your uniform. Same with denial of free will, you can easily know you are the bad guy.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 15:30:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 15:30:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 22, 2020, 10:15:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The denial of free will is equivalent to the skull on the ss uniform. You
> can easily know you are the bad guy, when you have a skull so prominently
> on your uniform. Same with denial of free will, you can easily know you are the bad guy.
>
You are the poster boy for lack of free will. You don’t even talk
> The denial of free will is equivalent to the skull on the ss uniform. You
> can easily know you are the bad guy, when you have a skull so prominently
> on your uniform. Same with denial of free will, you can easily know you are the bad guy.
>
implicitly of positive freedom (“freedom to”) or negative “freedom from”
and continue to compulsively paint yourself into the same corner or chain
yourself to the same non-starting rhetoric. When you demonstrate a knack
for thinking outside your dark little verbal box, then you might be worth
listening to. You aren’t even free from your compulsive predicable
patterns.
Arguing from the position that your opponents are automatically Nazis by
fiat is a convenient out from the fact you have no bases on which to ground
an actual case. More of the same recurrent crap you always fling because
you are stuck in an ignorant loop.
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 10:40:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 8:40:28 AM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> The denial of free will is equivalent to the skull on the ss uniform. You can easily know you are the bad guy, when you have a skull so prominently on your uniform. Same with denial of free will, you can easily know you are the bad guy.
Your continued denial, and quest to suppress the truth is noted. The ID perps are claiming that their free speech is being suppressed, but IDiots like you are the ones suppressing it. The reason the IDiot perps are allowed to suppress the facts about their evidence for IDiocy is because IDiots like you don't want to understand what IDiocy is. Really, you are the one that wants to suppress that reality. Why is it so difficult for you to try to understand the situation and change it? All you have to do is try to understand what the evidence actually is, but what do you want to do instead?
> The denial of free will is equivalent to the skull on the ss uniform. You can easily know you are the bad guy, when you have a skull so prominently on your uniform. Same with denial of free will, you can easily know you are the bad guy.
Ron Okimoto
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 11:10:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The nazi's ofcourse believed in racial predetermination. Predeterminism is what historian Klaus Fischer called, the most lethal aspect, of both nazi and communist ideology.
I have never seen any evolutionist capable of rational discourse about decisionmaking. For example to talk about a photon going route A or route B, on a circuit, as being a decision. Then the evolutionist starts screeching about one or the other thing, like a total maniac. You are no exception. It is quite evident from the way you talk, that what you say is not by open enquiry, reasonable evaluation of what is best, in comparison, but just a ball of emotion, insisting on things in an authoritarian way.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 16:15:27 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
I have never seen any evolutionist capable of rational discourse about decisionmaking. For example to talk about a photon going route A or route B, on a circuit, as being a decision. Then the evolutionist starts screeching about one or the other thing, like a total maniac. You are no exception. It is quite evident from the way you talk, that what you say is not by open enquiry, reasonable evaluation of what is best, in comparison, but just a ball of emotion, insisting on things in an authoritarian way.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 16:15:27 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 11:15:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The power of choice is that in principle, you can have all the possible permutations of DNA directly available in a decision on them. Not try out 1 permutation at a time, like in selection, but zillions of permutations directly available.
That is why people support intelligent design theory, because it is an obvious way to surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organism.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 16:40:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
That is why people support intelligent design theory, because it is an obvious way to surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organism.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 16:40:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 11:30:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 10:15:27 AM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> The power of choice is that in principle, you can have all the possible permutations of DNA directly available in a decision on them. Not try out 1 permutation at a time, like in selection, but zillions of permutations directly available.
>
> That is why people support intelligent design theory, because it is an obvious way to surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organism.
The simple fact that you cannot address the topic of this thread in an honest and straightforward manner should tell you how lost you have to be.
> The power of choice is that in principle, you can have all the possible permutations of DNA directly available in a decision on them. Not try out 1 permutation at a time, like in selection, but zillions of permutations directly available.
>
> That is why people support intelligent design theory, because it is an obvious way to surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organism.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 11:35:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It's just evolutionist denial of intelligent design, decisionmaking, free will.
Remember, denial of free will means you are evil. Not just ordinary evil, like greed, or lust, but ideological systematic evil, like totally satanic.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 17:30:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Remember, denial of free will means you are evil. Not just ordinary evil, like greed, or lust, but ideological systematic evil, like totally satanic.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 17:30:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
jillery
Nov 22, 2020, 11:55:27 AM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:39:25 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
>https://evolutionnews.org/2020/11/in-the-evolution-debate-how-truth-can-prevail/
>
>The ID perps have an article up claiming that the truth will prevail.
>
>QUOTE:
>Paul Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design.
>END QUOTE:
>
>As expected the article doesn't have much about the "truth" that should be publicly told.
>
>Not even the ID perps can deal with their Top Six in a straightforward and honest manner. They put up the Top Six back in Nov. 2017 when they were running the last bait and switch scam on the Utah creationist rubes. This is claimed to be their best evidence for intelligent design.
The problem with your cited article is deeper than that. It implies
that anything promoted by mass media and governments, like evolution,
is necessarily false, and anything not promoted by mass media and
governments, like ID, is necessarily true. This is a political
argument for a pseudo-skeptical and religious POV.
People should rightfully be skeptical of those with power and/or
authority. Such skepticism does not imply the authoritative and
powerful are necessarily wrong, nor does it justify mindlessly
accepting a contrarian position. Truth, to the degree it is truthful,
can usually be demonstrated on its merits, by using the mind to seek
meaningful questions and apply evidence and reason to their answers.
If the human mind was designed for a purpose, pseudo-skepticism
violates that purpose.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
wrote:
>https://evolutionnews.org/2020/11/in-the-evolution-debate-how-truth-can-prevail/
>
>The ID perps have an article up claiming that the truth will prevail.
>
>QUOTE:
>Paul Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design.
>END QUOTE:
>
>As expected the article doesn't have much about the "truth" that should be publicly told.
>
>Not even the ID perps can deal with their Top Six in a straightforward and honest manner. They put up the Top Six back in Nov. 2017 when they were running the last bait and switch scam on the Utah creationist rubes. This is claimed to be their best evidence for intelligent design.
that anything promoted by mass media and governments, like evolution,
is necessarily false, and anything not promoted by mass media and
governments, like ID, is necessarily true. This is a political
argument for a pseudo-skeptical and religious POV.
People should rightfully be skeptical of those with power and/or
authority. Such skepticism does not imply the authoritative and
powerful are necessarily wrong, nor does it justify mindlessly
accepting a contrarian position. Truth, to the degree it is truthful,
can usually be demonstrated on its merits, by using the mind to seek
meaningful questions and apply evidence and reason to their answers.
If the human mind was designed for a purpose, pseudo-skepticism
violates that purpose.
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 12:15:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 10:35:27 AM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's just evolutionist denial of intelligent design, decisionmaking, free will.
>
> Remember, denial of free will means you are evil. Not just ordinary evil, like greed, or lust, but ideological systematic evil, like totally satanic.
Why can't you do something honest and straightforward such as address the topic of this thread in a reasonable and rational manner? You are just demonstrating why free speech is just another bogus and dishonest aspect of the creationist ID scam.
> It's just evolutionist denial of intelligent design, decisionmaking, free will.
>
> Remember, denial of free will means you are evil. Not just ordinary evil, like greed, or lust, but ideological systematic evil, like totally satanic.
There are obviously challenges with getting the truth of the ID scam out in the open, but the obstacles are put up by the ID perps and the IDiots.
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 12:35:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 10:55:27 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:39:25 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2020/11/in-the-evolution-debate-how-truth-can-prevail/
> >
> >The ID perps have an article up claiming that the truth will prevail.
> >
> >QUOTE:
> >Paul Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design.
> >END QUOTE:
> >
> >As expected the article doesn't have much about the "truth" that should be publicly told.
> >
> >Not even the ID perps can deal with their Top Six in a straightforward and honest manner. They put up the Top Six back in Nov. 2017 when they were running the last bait and switch scam on the Utah creationist rubes. This is claimed to be their best evidence for intelligent design.
> The problem with your cited article is deeper than that. It implies
> that anything promoted by mass media and governments, like evolution,
> is necessarily false, and anything not promoted by mass media and
> governments, like ID, is necessarily true. This is a political
> argument for a pseudo-skeptical and religious POV.
>
> People should rightfully be skeptical of those with power and/or
> authority. Such skepticism does not imply the authoritative and
> powerful are necessarily wrong, nor does it justify mindlessly
> accepting a contrarian position. Truth, to the degree it is truthful,
> can usually be demonstrated on its merits, by using the mind to seek
> meaningful questions and apply evidence and reason to their answers.
> If the human mind was designed for a purpose, pseudo-skepticism
> violates that purpose.
There is a lot wrong with what the ID perps are doing. Nando is demonstrating why they get away with it. The only IDiots left in existence are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. It has been that way for around 2 decades (next March will be 19 years since the bait and switch started to go down, and no IDiot has ever gotten any ID science since). After using the ID perp link you are asked to donate to the bogus cause. How sad is that for any IDiots left in existence. Dembski quit the ID scam, and claimed that he was going to go into education. Now some of those donations will likely go to Dembski as a board member of the Discovery Institute. He obviously has nothing to add to the ID scam, so IDiots are just paying him off for his past work on the creationist scam. None of Dembski's junk made it on the original Top Six. Sewell dropped Behe's IC out of the Top Six, so only the god-of-the-gaps denial junk that failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago is left in the Top Six. The ID perps haven't contributed anything worth noting to the creationist effort by their own reckoning.
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:39:25 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2020/11/in-the-evolution-debate-how-truth-can-prevail/
> >
> >The ID perps have an article up claiming that the truth will prevail.
> >
> >QUOTE:
> >Paul Kecskemeti’s analysis perfectly describes the challenge faced by anyone who wishes to publicly tell the truth about the evidence for design.
> >END QUOTE:
> >
> >As expected the article doesn't have much about the "truth" that should be publicly told.
> >
> >Not even the ID perps can deal with their Top Six in a straightforward and honest manner. They put up the Top Six back in Nov. 2017 when they were running the last bait and switch scam on the Utah creationist rubes. This is claimed to be their best evidence for intelligent design.
> The problem with your cited article is deeper than that. It implies
> that anything promoted by mass media and governments, like evolution,
> is necessarily false, and anything not promoted by mass media and
> governments, like ID, is necessarily true. This is a political
> argument for a pseudo-skeptical and religious POV.
>
> People should rightfully be skeptical of those with power and/or
> authority. Such skepticism does not imply the authoritative and
> powerful are necessarily wrong, nor does it justify mindlessly
> accepting a contrarian position. Truth, to the degree it is truthful,
> can usually be demonstrated on its merits, by using the mind to seek
> meaningful questions and apply evidence and reason to their answers.
> If the human mind was designed for a purpose, pseudo-skepticism
> violates that purpose.
Ron Okimoto
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 12:40:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
We can all see the free speech denying, violent, mentally ill, socialists, at the universities. Fruits from the tree of evolution.
It is what happens when you throw out emotions / opinion / free will, intellectually.
The only recourse of students is postmodernism, to assert opinions are inherent in statements of fact. That way they allow a little room for emotion / opinion. To assert subjectivity inside of objectivity, is the only recourse when materialism predominates. That meanspirited atmosphere, that if there is no evidence for it, then it is thrown out. Meaning to throw out all inherently subjective things, like emotions.
You are totally, ridiculously, evil.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 18:15:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 1:05:28 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 11:40:27 AM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> We can all see the free speech denying, violent, mentally ill, socialists, at the universities. Fruits from the tree of evolution.
>
> It is what happens when you throw out emotions / opinion / free will, intellectually.
>
> The only recourse of students is postmodernism, to assert opinions are inherent in statements of fact. That way they allow a little room for emotion / opinion. To assert subjectivity inside of objectivity, is the only recourse when materialism predominates. That meanspirited atmosphere, that if there is no evidence for it, then it is thrown out. Meaning to throw out all inherently subjective things, like emotions.
>
> You are totally, ridiculously, evil.
So much for the reasoned and rational. The saddest thing is that there likely isn't an IDiot in existence that can do better with the current situation. Is there a reasoned and rational argument to support the current reality with the ID creationist scam as it stands today?
> We can all see the free speech denying, violent, mentally ill, socialists, at the universities. Fruits from the tree of evolution.
>
> It is what happens when you throw out emotions / opinion / free will, intellectually.
>
> The only recourse of students is postmodernism, to assert opinions are inherent in statements of fact. That way they allow a little room for emotion / opinion. To assert subjectivity inside of objectivity, is the only recourse when materialism predominates. That meanspirited atmosphere, that if there is no evidence for it, then it is thrown out. Meaning to throw out all inherently subjective things, like emotions.
>
> You are totally, ridiculously, evil.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 8:15:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Evolutionist: This is a total outrage that they are perpetrating this scam of intelligent design theory, for which there is no evidence.
Evolutionist also: People don't make choices.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 19:05:28 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Evolutionist also: People don't make choices.
Op zondag 22 november 2020 om 19:05:28 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
broger...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 8:35:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 11:35:27 AM UTC-5, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's just evolutionist denial of intelligent design, decisionmaking, free will.
>
> Remember, denial of free will means you are evil. Not just ordinary evil, like greed, or lust, but ideological systematic evil, like totally satanic.
>
>
Have you ever met any actual evolutionists face to face? I'm one. I don't deny free will or decision making. Indeed I freely make decisions all the time. I also don't deny emotions, not even remotely.
> It's just evolutionist denial of intelligent design, decisionmaking, free will.
>
> Remember, denial of free will means you are evil. Not just ordinary evil, like greed, or lust, but ideological systematic evil, like totally satanic.
>
>
You just seem frustrated that people won't accept your schema so you make up nonsense about what they believe and call them evil Nazis. Nothing shows the emptiness of your argument better than your quickness at calling everybody who disagrees with you a Nazi.
Ron O
Nov 22, 2020, 8:40:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Evolutionist: This is a total outrage that they are perpetrating this scam of intelligent design theory, for which there is no evidence.
> Evolutionist also: People don't make choices.
I realize that you can't deal with reality in a rational manner. As I said before there is likely no reason to start again because the result will be just as disjointed and meaningless as what you have done so far.
> Evolutionist: This is a total outrage that they are perpetrating this scam of intelligent design theory, for which there is no evidence.
> Evolutionist also: People don't make choices.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 9:40:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Another evolutionist: I don't deny people make choices, making a choice means you could not have done otherwise. (Dennett)
You rejected my interpretation of the photon experiment, that establishes "could have" as a physical reality.
You reject the creationist conceptual scheme, which validates the ideas of emotions and subjective opinion. The creationist conceptual scheme which hinges on choice.
Can you see from my point of view that, you are a total liar who denies free will and rejects emotions?
Op maandag 23 november 2020 om 02:35:27 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
You rejected my interpretation of the photon experiment, that establishes "could have" as a physical reality.
You reject the creationist conceptual scheme, which validates the ideas of emotions and subjective opinion. The creationist conceptual scheme which hinges on choice.
Can you see from my point of view that, you are a total liar who denies free will and rejects emotions?
Op maandag 23 november 2020 om 02:35:27 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
Mike Duffy
Nov 22, 2020, 10:20:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:37:01 -0800, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> You can easily know you are the bad guy, when you
When you top-post.
> You can easily know you are the bad guy, when you
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 22, 2020, 10:30:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 22, 2020, 10:30:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Evolutionist: This is a total outrage that they are perpetrating this
>> scam of intelligent design theory, for which there is no evidence.
>> Evolutionist also: People don't make choices.
>
> I realize that you can't deal with reality in a rational manner. As I
> said before there is likely no reason to start again because the result
> will be just as disjointed and meaningless as what you have done so far.
>
Yeah. I’m having a serious argument with myself whether that happens to be
> On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Evolutionist: This is a total outrage that they are perpetrating this
>> scam of intelligent design theory, for which there is no evidence.
>> Evolutionist also: People don't make choices.
>
> I realize that you can't deal with reality in a rational manner. As I
> said before there is likely no reason to start again because the result
> will be just as disjointed and meaningless as what you have done so far.
>
fun or tragic. Maybe he shouldn’t feel encouraged by further engagement
with his delusions. But it is kinda fun when not boringly repetitive (eg-
reflexive Nazi comparisons). What to do?
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2020, 11:20:27 PM11/22/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You cannot deal with emotions, as being inherently subjective, and agency of choices people make.
Op maandag 23 november 2020 om 02:40:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Op maandag 23 november 2020 om 02:40:27 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Ron O
Nov 23, 2020, 6:15:28 AM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 10:20:27 PM UTC-6, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> You cannot deal with emotions, as being inherently subjective, and agency of choices people make.
Probably the most tragic thing is that you are the one that can't even deal with the subject of this thread, and you are the only IDiot trying to defend this IDiocy.
> You cannot deal with emotions, as being inherently subjective, and agency of choices people make.
Ron Okimoto
broger...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2020, 6:45:27 AM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 9:40:27 PM UTC-5, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Another evolutionist: I don't deny people make choices, making a choice means you could not have done otherwise. (Dennett)
>
> You rejected my interpretation of the photon experiment, that establishes "could have" as a physical reality.
>
> You reject the creationist conceptual scheme, which validates the ideas of emotions and subjective opinion. The creationist conceptual scheme which hinges on choice.
>
> Can you see from my point of view that, you are a total liar who denies free will and rejects emotions?
No. I don't deny free will. I accept free will. I make free choices. I certainly don't reject emotions - I feel them often. I know it's tough when the world and other people don't obediently fit into your schema of how the world must be, but, there it is.
> Another evolutionist: I don't deny people make choices, making a choice means you could not have done otherwise. (Dennett)
>
> You rejected my interpretation of the photon experiment, that establishes "could have" as a physical reality.
>
> You reject the creationist conceptual scheme, which validates the ideas of emotions and subjective opinion. The creationist conceptual scheme which hinges on choice.
>
> Can you see from my point of view that, you are a total liar who denies free will and rejects emotions?
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2020, 9:50:28 AM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You redefine the concept of choice to make it have the same logic as being forced. Which then means emotions are then objectively identifiable causes, forcing the result in a choice. Which means you make subjective opinion, into a subcategory of objectivity, namely facts about particular brainstates, the brainstates that comprise the emotions.
To state a painting is beautiful, is then to state a fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. A chosen opinion, the result of the choice being forced by the electrochemical love in the brain.
You can still easily know that you are a bad guy.
Op maandag 23 november 2020 om 12:45:27 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
To state a painting is beautiful, is then to state a fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. A chosen opinion, the result of the choice being forced by the electrochemical love in the brain.
You can still easily know that you are a bad guy.
Op maandag 23 november 2020 om 12:45:27 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
broger...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2020, 12:50:28 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-5, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> You redefine the concept of choice to make it have the same logic as being forced. Which then means emotions are then objectively identifiable causes, forcing the result in a choice. Which means you make subjective opinion, into a subcategory of objectivity, namely facts about particular brainstates, the brainstates that comprise the emotions.
>
> To state a painting is beautiful, is then to state a fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. A chosen opinion, the result of the choice being forced by the electrochemical love in the brain.
You are making things needlessly complicated. Regardless of why I feel emotions, there's no doubt at all that I do feel them. It's not as though I love my wife but then say to myself, "Well it's just electrochemical stuff going on in my brain, so it's not real love." Love is love. When I make a choice, it feels like a choice, whether or not you find versions of free will other than your own unappealing.
> You redefine the concept of choice to make it have the same logic as being forced. Which then means emotions are then objectively identifiable causes, forcing the result in a choice. Which means you make subjective opinion, into a subcategory of objectivity, namely facts about particular brainstates, the brainstates that comprise the emotions.
>
> To state a painting is beautiful, is then to state a fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. A chosen opinion, the result of the choice being forced by the electrochemical love in the brain.
>
> You can still easily know that you are a bad guy.
It's for my family, friends and neighbors to judge whether I'm a bad guy, not for me.
> You can still easily know that you are a bad guy.
>
>
<snip>
Glenn
Nov 23, 2020, 2:35:28 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Nov 23, 2020, 2:35:28 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Nov 23, 2020, 2:40:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Nov 23, 2020, 2:45:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 10:50:28 AM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-5, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You redefine the concept of choice to make it have the same logic as being forced. Which then means emotions are then objectively identifiable causes, forcing the result in a choice. Which means you make subjective opinion, into a subcategory of objectivity, namely facts about particular brainstates, the brainstates that comprise the emotions.
> >
> > To state a painting is beautiful, is then to state a fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. A chosen opinion, the result of the choice being forced by the electrochemical love in the brain.
> You are making things needlessly complicated. Regardless of why I feel emotions, there's no doubt at all that I do feel them. It's not as though I love my wife but then say to myself, "Well it's just electrochemical stuff going on in my brain, so it's not real love." Love is love. When I make a choice, it feels like a choice, whether or not you find versions of free will other than your own unappealing.
> >
> > You can still easily know that you are a bad guy.
> It's for my family, friends and neighbors to judge whether I'm a bad guy, not for me.
> >
Oh hell no.
> On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-5, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You redefine the concept of choice to make it have the same logic as being forced. Which then means emotions are then objectively identifiable causes, forcing the result in a choice. Which means you make subjective opinion, into a subcategory of objectivity, namely facts about particular brainstates, the brainstates that comprise the emotions.
> >
> > To state a painting is beautiful, is then to state a fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. A chosen opinion, the result of the choice being forced by the electrochemical love in the brain.
> You are making things needlessly complicated. Regardless of why I feel emotions, there's no doubt at all that I do feel them. It's not as though I love my wife but then say to myself, "Well it's just electrochemical stuff going on in my brain, so it's not real love." Love is love. When I make a choice, it feels like a choice, whether or not you find versions of free will other than your own unappealing.
> >
> > You can still easily know that you are a bad guy.
> It's for my family, friends and neighbors to judge whether I'm a bad guy, not for me.
> >
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2020, 4:50:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ideas matter. Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide. Your ideas are basically nazi ideology.
You go out of your way to destroy belief in anything inherently subjective. That's obviously going to destroy people's emotional life. You make pronouncements on love and hate as cold hard fact. You're a total monstrosity.
maandag 23 november 2020 om 18:50:28 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
You go out of your way to destroy belief in anything inherently subjective. That's obviously going to destroy people's emotional life. You make pronouncements on love and hate as cold hard fact. You're a total monstrosity.
maandag 23 november 2020 om 18:50:28 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 23, 2020, 6:50:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ideas matter. Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide. Your ideas are
> basically nazi ideology.
>
The Godwin is strong in this one. Ideas do matter. And conflating what Bill
> Ideas matter. Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide. Your ideas are
> basically nazi ideology.
>
says with Nazi ideology indicates you struggle with making proper
distinctions between ideas. Ideas elude you. Ideas may be avoiding you as
they can’t stand association with the rotting septic sludge residing in
your brain.
>
> You go out of your way to destroy belief in anything inherently subjective.
>
How so? I don’t see that at all in what Bill says. I do notice that your
> You go out of your way to destroy belief in anything inherently subjective.
>
top-posting avoidance of engaging point by point with what Bill actually
says means you can pontificate and basically make shit up about people.
>
> That's obviously going to destroy people's emotional life. You make
> pronouncements on love and hate as cold hard fact. You're a total monstrosity.
>
No you are. You shit-post and trash people without actually engaging with
> That's obviously going to destroy people's emotional life. You make
> pronouncements on love and hate as cold hard fact. You're a total monstrosity.
>
what they actually say. And every post you make betrays complete ignorance
of the topic you have obsessed on since the late 90s...free will.
Glenn
Nov 23, 2020, 7:50:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2020, 8:15:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
He makes content of character, people's emotions, to be factual. He throws out anything inherently subjective. So do you.
Op dinsdag 24 november 2020 om 00:50:27 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Op dinsdag 24 november 2020 om 00:50:27 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 23, 2020, 8:25:28 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He makes content of character, people's emotions, to be factual. He
> throws out anything inherently subjective. So do you.
>
Bullshit. Show such a thing point by point. You can’t. That’s why you top
> He makes content of character, people's emotions, to be factual. He
> throws out anything inherently subjective. So do you.
>
post.
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 23, 2020, 8:35:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
his defense. Birds of a feather.
>
> Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide.
>
In what way are Bill or I expressing Nazi ideology twit? Nando had said
> Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide.
>
above “Your ideas are basically nazi ideology.” Are you tacitly agreeing?
Hard to tell as the slop that comes out of you isn’t much easier parsed
than Nando’s sewage.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2020, 8:35:27 PM11/23/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What are you even talking about. He simply said content of character is a factual issue. So did you.
Op dinsdag 24 november 2020 om 02:25:28 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Op dinsdag 24 november 2020 om 02:25:28 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Glenn
Nov 24, 2020, 12:20:27 AM11/24/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> >
> > Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide.
> >
> In what way are Bill or I expressing Nazi ideology twit? Nando had said
> above “Your ideas are basically nazi ideology.” Are you tacitly agreeing?
> Hard to tell as the slop that comes out of you isn’t much easier parsed
> than Nando’s sewage.
Apparently you consider "Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide" to be badly parsed "slop" and "sewage". Otherwise you would have no alternative but to agree.
> > Nazi ideology leads to war and genocide.
> >
> In what way are Bill or I expressing Nazi ideology twit? Nando had said
> above “Your ideas are basically nazi ideology.” Are you tacitly agreeing?
> Hard to tell as the slop that comes out of you isn’t much easier parsed
> than Nando’s sewage.
Also not surprising.
jillery
Nov 24, 2020, 5:25:30 AM11/24/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:34:09 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
While you got your nappies in a twist over "Nazi", remind yourself
which poster introduced that word and the concept into this topic, and
who uses them more often by far than anybody else. Try wearing
glasses, if you can find some that fit your blue nose.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
wrote:
which poster introduced that word and the concept into this topic, and
who uses them more often by far than anybody else. Try wearing
glasses, if you can find some that fit your blue nose.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
0 new messages