Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: whereislogic

Once again you are claiming that people who know the fact of evolution and mankind being around for longer than six thousand years is blind faith.

I'm glad you are searching for logic because believing in an old book and your organization's doctrine over sound science is not logical whatsoever.

You call science propaganda? What is your newsletter if not the epitome of propaganda.

What is it that you aren't allowed to expose on ats? I'm very curious. It must be juicy.

originally posted by: whereislogic
The type of faith you're talking about (given your other comment) is called blind faith, just like most others here have regarding many subjects including those who claim to be so much against faith/belief and their views regarding that topic are believed based on blind faith as well.

Blind faith in something that is true would mean you are correct.

Saying that the information so far seems to indicate a possible answer doesn't sound like blind trust or blind faith at all.

Some people might talk like that but that isn't anyone elses fault but their own.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic

The problem is that what constitutes evidence for some is not for others. At that point your logical faith stops being "logical".

Thank you for your reasonable and sensible comment, may I suggest some additions for clarity?

The problem is that what constitutes evidence for some (group A) is actually not perceived as logical or reasonable by others. If these others (group B) are correct in their assessment, then that means the faith/belief of group A* is not logical and can be accurately referred to as "blind faith". If they (group B) however are incorrect in their assessment, it may actually be a sign of bias and the inclination of their hearts interfering (a figurative expression) often supported by their blind faith and illogical arguments (see previously shared video for details).

* = this is speaking of their belief that it is logical evidence and that their accompanying arguments are reasonable and that it constitutes logical and reasonable evidence for the view/belief that they are using it in support of

Now on to the next subject of how does a person determin who is right and who is wrong? They can use their thinking abilities they were born with (their power of reason, which is applying logic, such as inductive reasoning). But many people are not aware how these can be easily influenced by emotions that are played on by practiced publicists and propagandists such as Dawkins, Krauss, Hitchens, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, John Lennox, W.L.Craig, Craig Venter, Jack Szostak, Hugh Ross, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. People who are very skilled in selling themselves and their products (in most cases figurative tar-water philosophies, but in some cases such as Kent Hovind, literal poison such as his B17 supposed 'cancer medicine'). Tar-water causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning btw, but that's another story about Bishop Berkeley who made such an impression on humanity (sold himself and his views so well, including the still popular philosophy of immaterialism, which shows up with modifications nowadays a lot in discussions about quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat, supposed simulations or persistent illusions and the movie "The Matrix"), that they named a university after him in the US. Darwin got his only diploma and training from similar Trinitarian philosophers as Bishop Berkeley at Christ's College, a Bachelor of Arts diploma in the Divine Studies, nowadays called Theology. They're experts in selling themselves and their philosophies and evolutionary philosophies are just one of the many products being sold to the public.

I have found the following method to be of extremely good use to me, please do not get confused by Newton's usage of the word "philosophy" (see last quotation for clarity):

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...

From Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Newton: Principia mathematica:

His work Principia mathematica (1687) is generally regarded as the most important work of the Scientific Revolution.
...
Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

That would be described by the man in my video about Newton as "the greatest book of science ever written bar none, it is the most magnificent work, it is the most all-encompassing work, it is the most daring book of any scientific treatise ever written."
And I would have to agree with that opinion shared by many respected scientists. However, for some reason, many of these will not quote Newton on the subject of hypotheses, I wonder why...(well, I know, but then someone will come in and paint his picture again of me being a know-it-all if I say it like that, not promoting agnostic philosophies enough for their liking that are so perfect for selling stories as hypotheses under the marketing label "science").

a reply to: whereislogic

So Bill nye and Neil degrasse Tyson have a propagandic agenda but the Jehovah's witnesses do not?

Basically what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't support the beliefs of the Jehovah's witnesses are spreading lies? Yes or no?

a reply to: whereislogic

Simple question anything that conflicts with your beliefs is a lie of propaganda. Yes or no?

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: whereislogic

Simple question anything that conflicts with your beliefs is a lie of propaganda. Yes or no?

It would seem that anything that conflicts with logic is what he is saying. But you are too blind to see it, excuse me for being so blunt.

For when evidence and proofs lead to a certain logical explanation of things that are NOT what you want, then you ignore them. It isn't based on logic or science of intelligence this disbelief in God. For it is NOT shown in nature or the universe. The fact that everything shows it has an intelligence behind it is not propaganda. It is logical and clear. That you deny it means you do NOT pay heed to the evidence. It means your heart condition is such that it will not let you see it.

originally posted by: QuinnP
That you deny it means you do NOT pay heed to the evidence. It means your heart condition is such that it will not let you see it.

No, it means that it is subjective and that those with a favorable bias (favorable heart condition) see what they want to see.

Those waiting for objective evidence don't have that bias.

a reply to: QuinnP
I hardly spoke about propaganda in the comments that joecanada11 is responding to, he's just trying to put words in my mouth and paint a negative picture, his questions are rhetorical and I've already answered them in other threads (it's more a matter of showing that I didn't say anything of the sorts, which he then ignores and continues with his next spin of what I'm saying, rinse and repeat on another thread, so what's the point).

In my last few comments here I only used the words "propagandists" once, and it wasn't the main point of my comment.
If people don't want to do the analysis regarding the names I mentioned themselves; at most I can give a few clues how to find out more about it. If you'd like to know more about how I feel for example about Neil deGrasse Tyson and similar types promoting and propagandizing in favor of their agnosticism (and their use of so-called hypotheses to evade arguments from induction, see what I bolded from Newton, you won't hear Neil deGrasse Tyson teach anything beneficial about that phrase), try this comment for more details.

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think.

From the article in my sig.

I view people as using propaganda or as propagandists when they're actually using propaganda techniques (illogical argumentation does not necessarily mean someone is using propaganda techniques).

There is plenty of evidence available in the presentations of these people mentioned in my list earlier that could be matched for example with the following descriptions of the methods used when spreading propaganda:

This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.
...
Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies.
...
Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people.
...
Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

For example, in recent years a powerful antisect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, created the image of an enemy, and reinforced existing prejudices against religious minorities. Often, “sect” becomes a catchword. “‘Sect’ is another word for ‘heretic,’” wrote German Professor Martin Kriele in 1993, “and a heretic today in Germany, as in former times, is [condemned to extermination]—if not by fire . . . , then by character assassination, isolation and economic destruction.”
...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000
And more from the article in my sig:

Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: QuinnP
That you deny it means you do NOT pay heed to the evidence. It means your heart condition is such that it will not let you see it.

Those waiting for objective evidence don't have that bias.

Waiting for it usually isn't a good approach regarding gaining anything (well, that's a figurative expression cause I can think of dust and fat of the top of my head). But I think the poem in the video I shared earlier expresses the situation better regarding some people:
Blind - John Kendrick Bangs:

Blind

SHOW me your God the doubter cries.
I point him out the smiling skies;
I show him all the woodland greens;
I show him peaceful sylvan scenes;
I show him winter snows and frost;
I show him waters tempest-tossed;
I show him hills rock-ribbed and strong;
I bid him hear the thrush's song;
I show him flowers in the close
The lily, violet and rose;
I show him rivers, babbling streams;
I show him youthful hopes and dreams;
I show him stars, the moon, the sun;
I show him deeds of kindness done;
I show him joy, I show him care,
And still he holds his doubting air,
And faithless goes his way, for he
Is blind of soul, and cannot see!

Some people cannot understand this poem to refer to anything else than a 'god of the gaps' argument either because of what they've been conditioned with by repetition. But it's not, it's based on inductive reasoning (allbeit less obvious than below) just like Isaac Newton reached his conclusions regarding God's existence by observing natural phenomena. One of the reasons I keep sharing both the video with Newton using inductive reasoning as well as the video with Michael Behe where he explains how inductive reasoning works in a bit more detail than what I quoted before about it.
From:
5:00 - 13:22
26:50 - 39:30

There's a refutation of chemical evolution/abiogenesis by natural causes as well as what is referred to as "macroevolution" in the video below, as well as more evidence some people don't want to see or acknowledge even its existence of:

originally posted by: whereislogic
Waiting for it usually isn't a good approach regarding gaining anything (well, that's a figurative expression cause I can think of dust and fat of the top of my head).

In this case it leads to the god of the gaps.

But I think the poem in the video I shared earlier expresses the situation better regarding some people:

Those people may be wrong but that doesn't make you right.

Some people cannot understand this poem to refer to anything else than a 'god of the gaps' argument either because of what they've been conditioned with by repetition.

Seems to me that it is you who cannot see why it is a god of the gaps argument because of your conditioning.

But it's not, it's based on inductive reasoning

Call it what you want, it isn't evidence by todays standards.

There's a refutation of chemical evolution/abiogenesis by natural causes as well as what is referred to as "macroevolution" in the video below, as well as more evidence some people don't want to see or acknowledge even its existence of

As soon as I see macroevolution I know I've heard it before. Like i said way back (actually probably another thread), a creator can be a peer, it doesn't, by default prove the god described in the bible.

a reply to: whereislogic

The fact that you put Tyson as a propaganda agent instantly made me stop reading. Philosophy is not science, stop treating them equally and calling established brilliant scientists propagandists. It's absurd and insulting.

a reply to: Barcs
Tyson painted a god of the gaps argument on Isaac Newton while pretending to be his biggest fan and using god of the gaps arguments himself on a regular basis. If I want to call him out on his techniques I won't be worried about your blind admiration of him. I prefer to defend Isaac Newton rather than worrying about the sensitivities of the Tyson-fans (which may cause a person to fear speaking out against this 'twisting of someone elses position to paint a straw man on them' type of behaviour, something you're very good at as well I've noticed). But perhaps as a fan, you can remind me of his latest groundbreaking discovery in the sciences comparable to Newton's discoveries regarding gravity, optics, physics and mathematics (no, renaming something and trying to sound clever about it doesn't count, neither do stories sold as hypotheses or unverified philosophies for that matter).

He also regularly capitalizes on the ambiguity of language and tries to confuse people about the word "absolute" and "science" and how these 2 words relate to one another. The man has no appreciation for real science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties/truths or that which is factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive (adj.: correct, without error. Unlike Newton who he's misrepresenting to get others to dismiss him when it comes to the more important subjects of reality). And the main reason I have to do this annoying list of synonyms to remind people as to what agnostics like him are doing with people's understanding of language.

Yay, the multiverse!

Oh, using concepts borrowed from ancient religious Pagan philosophers to explain your myths doesn't count either. Well, I couldn't quickly find an example but I know I've seen the notion of a multiverse before somewhere.
Swap "mine" for "theory":

Just noticed he couldn't resist invoking Isaac Newton pointlessly as well again. Ah, found it.
Multiverse (religion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Hinduism

The concept of multiple universes is mentioned many times in Hindu Puranic literature,...

I'll spare you the details, you might even be able to trace it back to Babylon cause that's where the Hindu Brahmin got most of their religious ideas from. The same counts for the idea of an eternal cyclical universe (nowadays described as the cyclic model or oscillating model, no doubt you can find a video with Tyson spreading those religious philosophies as well, evidence a plenty that I'm justified in adding him to the list I mentioned).

a reply to: QuinnP

What evidence? There is zero definitive evidence of a god. If you have faith that is fine but it is not based on evidence.

It is not a fact that everything in the universe shows intelligence. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Just because you believe does not make it true.

a reply to: whereislogic

You make it sound like a popularity contest or high school cliques trying to out-cool each other.

a reply to: whereislogic

The poem is not based on inductive reasoning that's very funny though. Look we have beautiful skies and forests and winter and snow Therefore god did it. Is that your version of logic ?

a reply to: Joecanada11
It doesn't seem like you had a particularly long and deep thought about it including everything below it in my comment that already mentioned:

it's based on inductive reasoning (albeit less obvious than below)

The poem was meant to bring out another point, I didn't even need to point out it was based on inductive reasoning and as I did as usual I was expecting someone like you for example to cherry-pick that out to hammer on and play your usual twisting game to make it about that poem specifically cause it's easier to attack. Someone not awake to this behaviour might recognize it one day perhaps, now that's a nice idea.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again I will ask you a simple question. Any science that doesn't conform to the Jehovah's witness doctrine is a lie ? Yes or no?

a reply to: Joecanada11
no

oh, and just to be clear, it was a poem to describe a state of mind and how people look at the facts, not a logical argument for the existence of God. It's best when a person reaches that conclusion on their own by accepting the value of inductive reasoning and gaining understanding how it applies to for example biomolecular machinery.

But I understand you're not particularly interested in thinking about my comments that way and responding in a manner that shows you've given it some thought rather than trying to draw another comment out of me hoping I will say something that doesn't help anyone or may even do harm to the way people view comments about this subject.

a reply to: whereislogic

Maybe if you didn't say that science that proves mankind has been around for more than six thousand years is a lie and part of some fantasy agenda we wouldn't be having this conversation.

originally posted by: whereislogic
oh, and just to be clear, it was a poem to describe a state of mind and how people look at the facts

Yes that is subjective and you can fill in the gaps with whatever makes you happy but what you fill them with might not be what the guy down the street fills them with.

Nothing more than an opinion.