It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Out of curiosity would you mind sharing the site you pulled that quote from?




posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Mr. Shapiro has been a very good salesman, marketeer, propagandizer, promoter and teacher of evolutionary philosophies, of that there is no doubt. His credentials match his success in that field.

I'm glad he isn't as much as a pussy as the others in admitting that that's what these myths are though, even though he's using different terminology, possibly to allow for a way out. For someone to argue for example that he was just talking about "Darwinian evolution" and "neo-Darwinism" and not "modern evolutionary synthesis" (quoting Tzarchasm) or any of the other stories or ways one could define or attach to the word "evolution" or "evolve".

Perhaps that and his continued adherence and promotion of evolutionary philosophies is what has kept and is still keeping him of the Darwinist inquisitors' black-list after such a bold, courageous and honest statement.

Did I already warn for a certain cynical level of sarcasm in this thread? I think I did. And of course he never said "is" but "has functioned more as", so he still hasn't really acknowledged or admitted that it is a "philosophical belief system" of a large variety of myths (and philosophies) sharing the core philosophy of 'Mother Nature did it' and philosophical naturalism (derived from Greek Pagan Pantheism and stripped of its theism but still using the same reasoning). He also didn't mention much about how you can tell:


edit on 20-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You are not the first person to satire modern evolutionary synthesis and you will not be the last.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


Perhaps that and his continued adherence and promotion of evolutionary philosophies is what has kept and is still keeping him of the Darwinist inquisitors' black-list after such a bold, courageous and honest statement.

Heh.
So, it's all a ploy. Awesome. Are you saying that he does not actually "believe" in evolution?

The confirmation bias is strong with this one. When shown what his source actually says...heat up that waffle iron baby! I'll take mine with blueberries.

edit on 9/20/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
Is it difficult to come up with the google searchterm "Bill Nye education" when you're the one bringing him up? It should lead you to the same places as me, perhaps at the same time you can figure out for me which PhD. degrees he earned with multiple years of attending classes, taking tests and doing and fulfilling all the requirements that those without the right friends in the right places have to do and fulfill. There has to be something?
edit on 20-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: whereislogic

So, it's all a ploy. Awesome. Are you saying that he does not actually "believe" in evolution?

The confirmation bias is strong with this one. When shown what his source actually says...

Except before your comment about "what [Shapiro] actually says" I had already mentioned he was an evolutionary philosopher and philosophical naturalist (which was also the reason I mentioned the "Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship" when first bringing him up).
Otherwise brilliant play there, oh how you love the debate mindgames.

Let's play some more "are you saying" games. My mouth will be closed for a while though, so you might want to find another mouth to put whatever follows after that phrase.

And don't try to shift to debating whether or not the term "scientist" is appropiate for Shapiro now, cause it gets me confused with the quoted commentary and question whether or not Bill Nye is a scientist or not. When Shapiro is selling evolutionary philosophies he's acting as an evolutionary philosopher and philosophical naturalist. The same counts for Bill Nye (and Stephen Hawking if he dares to use the word "evolution" when selling his philosophies based on philosophical naturalism, otherwise he's just acting as a philosophical naturalist, also a philosopher, such as when he's talking about the universe creating itself from nothing).
edit on 20-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




evolutionary philosopher

What's wrong with "scientist" or "geneticist?" Isn't that what he is?

Just so we're clear. No games. What exactly is your stance on evolution?

edit on 9/20/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
You're the one talking about "modern evolutionary synthesis", I'm talking about "evolutionary philosophies" or "evolutionary myths/false stories". If your definition of "modern evolutionary synthesis" does not qualify as an evolutionary philosophy or myth, you will hear no satire from me.

No, I'm not interested in your definition, or discussing "modern evolutionary synthesis". Like I said:

edit on 20-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Okay you guys according to this 84% of the worlds
population has faith in a being that guided mans existence thru
a hostile environment, void of labratories and sanitary petri dishes.
After seeing to his creation "In the beginning".

Secular academics believe mankind can be traced back to a "Common ancestor".

My questin is, does any body else on either side of this debate or perhaps both.
Does anybody else see the parallels I'm seeing here?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Randy, Buddy (and you know I mean that).

There is no problem with believing that God is the root cause of evolution (if you believe in God). The problem is denying that evolution occurs. That man has always been man.

What problem you ask? The problem is, the evidence says that man has not always been man.

edit on 9/20/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I pretty much get that and evidence is what it is in the grand scheme.
And I won't deny it's value. Yet the other hand holds a not so common
"Common ancesator" and a God who has left his existence in question.

Irratating !



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
Is it difficult to come up with the google searchterm "Bill Nye education" when you're the one bringing him up? It should lead you to the same places as me, perhaps at the same time you can figure out for me which PhD. degrees he earned with multiple years of attending classes, taking tests and doing and fulfilling all the requirements that those without the right friends in the right places have to do and fulfill. There has to be something?


He looks good on television though doesn't he? But maybe you're right maybe Bill Nye isn't as great an example as Stephen Hawking whom I noticed you have blatantly ignored. Is there a reason for this?

Instead of getting mad because science keeps making creationism look foolish why not just read up a bit and join the club?



originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
You're the one talking about "modern evolutionary synthesis", I'm talking about "evolutionary philosophies" or "evolutionary myths/false stories". If your definition of "modern evolutionary synthesis" does not qualify as an evolutionary philosophy or myth, you will hear no satire from me.

No, I'm not interested in your definition, or discussing "modern evolutionary synthesis". Like I said:


Then why are you even on this thread? To criticize the foundation of scientific inquiry because it refuses to prioritize the human ego over an honest and intellectually rigorous investigation of the reality we live in? Old news.

edit on 20-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I think it's funny how you people view "credentials" --- you laud and hail them as 'good'; as proof that a person you agree with is credible, so that makes you credible, too....but when it's a person you DISAGREE with you all just sneer at it as "oh, sure, a Liberal Education -- universities turn people into Nazis and communist "SJW" liberal 'trash' and dictatorial tyrants. Education brainwashes people."

That's what you types seem to do. Perhaps we need a standard for what counts as "credentialed' and 'expert'. For most educated people, it would mean publication in peer-reviewed professional journals. But if those journals get close to convincing you, then you dismiss them all as garbage and manipulation NWO psyops brainwashing techniques accelerated by adding chemtrails and poisoning our water. ????

sigh




edit on 9/20/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phage

I pretty much get that and evidence is what it is in the grand scheme.
And I won't deny it's value. Yet the other hand holds a not so common
"Common ancesator" and a God who has left his existence in question.

Irratating !


This is not true, man created god's and we can trace the evolution of god's through our writings and cave paintings.

Even if we did not have one single fossil, fossils that fall into a nested hierarchy, just as the theory predicts. We still have genetics that prove your DNA is built upon gene fragments of extinct monkeys along with lizards, fish and even plants. And now for the first time in history, these ancestral genes can be accurately identified and reconstructed with 98% accuracy.

Unfortunately for creationist, they have a lot of misinformation to unlearn before they can begin to have knowledge of evolution that should have been available to them in elementary school.
edit on fTuesday1600912f000112 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

There are many possibilities when it comes to evidence. You nor Phage nor
anyone on this planet can say all the evidence is on the table. I believe
your conclusions will also change and evolve.

edit on Rpm92016v03201600000057 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: flyingfish

There are many possibilities when it comes to evidence. You nor Phage nor
anyone on this planet can say all the evidence is on the table. I believe
your conclusions will also change and evolve.


In a manner consistent with the data we collect certainly.

edit on 20-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You're always so Johnny on the spot.
You didn't even give me a chance to correct my error at the beginning.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

i edited the quote for you because im nice like that. but yes, conclusions will change and evolve in a manner consistent with the data that we collect.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm okay with that to Tzar. Even as an avenue to common ground.
And thank you for the edit.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm okay with that to Tzar. Even as an avenue to common ground.
And thank you for the edit.


even if that common ground turns out to be a 7,900+ mile cemetery plot...


(implying the entire homo line will share a planetary grave as 'common ground' if nothing else, teehee)
edit on 20-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join