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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

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.

So you mention he already stands for a couple terms you made up and then quote mined for a quote to attribute to him in an attempt to purposely use him as an appeal to authority against what you say his position is now? A little disingenuous dont ya think? Or did I totally miss something?




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress
You missed reason, logic and honesty. You spotted the red herring debate game to distract away from what is actually quoted perfectly though. You even described or demonstrated it quite nicely with false accusations of:

- quote mining
- appeals to authority (when you simply don't like what he's saying because it's not tickling your ears, but having no issues when he's publicizing and sharing his opinions about evolutionary philosophies, then some people even feel the need to bring those up as a red herring, even implying those quotations somehow sets the one who used the initial quotation straight, as if it negates the earlier quotation, or as if I left that out on purpose when I already acknowledged the possibility of bringing that up twice, so there's no need to do that other than to play a game of false accusations; all I initially did was quote a "professor", quoting Tzarchasm's first comment in this thread and being reminded of how ironic this all is to me)
- 'are you saying...', 'you say...'

I was clear about "his position" as soon as I mentioned the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship, and made it even clearer after that, which isn't really necessary, cause most of the people who regularly post in this forum are familiar with Shapiro as well as some are familiar with my quotations of him (and there is google). It's just a game being played, nothing serious or rational about it. Quoting him on his views regarding evolutionary philosophies is not going to negate the other quotation and doesn't prove I'm quote mining especially when I've already made his position regarding those clear.

Don't like the term "evolutionary philosophies" or the derived terminology "evolutionary philosophers" that also comes from others using the term "evolutionary scientists" and "evolutionists"? I usually use "evolutionary philosophers" when referring to some people's practice of teaching and promoting evolutionary philosophies, at that point, they cease acting as scientists and are acting in the capacity of philosopher, or is that "as"? Evolutionary philosophies are the chosen subject of my OP as well as the subject of Shapiro's quotation (of course because there are so many, this does not mean he was talking about all of them, that's why I also included a video from a Professor Emeritus of Biology in the same comment, who talked about another related evolutionary philosophy/idea under the label "chemical evolution", where the word "evolution" is used in such a manner that it implies being caused by natural processes alone, no intelligent interference). Here's where I mentioned where you can find more examples of the evolutionary philosophies I'm talking about in the OP, or other ways to describe or define them:

I could say something about the video about "Define evolution" and specifically about what he said regarding de-evolution (and the common mental trigger regarding the philosophy/idea that 'evolution has no direction'). It's only de-evolution if you use his definition for the word "evolution". Which is pretty honest in representing a lot of things the word "evolution" has been used for especially on forums such as this that are titled "Origins and Creationism". Or the subjects he is clearly talking about and having issues with. And if promoters of evolutionary philosophies are using the word "evolution" to refer to or in stories about the subjects he spoke about at the end of the video when defining the word "evolution", then any objection of him doing that as well when responding to these evolutionary philosophies is irrational and unreasonable.

So have fun with your red herring party, but I'll just wait until someone wants to adress anything about the evolutionary philosophies and myths I'm talking about. The debate about a proper definition for the word "evolution" is in another direction btw. How people use the word is how it should be defined. So I'm using the term "evolutionary philosophies" instead, cause people can't be clear about the word "evolution" anymore. So debate away (also literally away, as in somewhere else) if you want to talk about "evolution" while giving it your own preferred definition and excluding every usage of it that you don't want to talk about out of convenience and denial of reality (including the reality that evolutionary philosophers are using the word "evolution" in those myths that I'm referring to and described in various ways and terminologies in my quotations and videos that I shared, and always when using this word in these myths it is implied that the change is happening because of natural processes alone; unlike in usages of the word "evolution" on other occasions).

I.e. the common denominator and philosophy in evolutionary philosophies or myths is:

'Mother Nature did it'

Not spelled out like that obviously. Sometimes not even mentioned at all. It is the hidden common denominator with which one can tell the different usages of "evolution" apart the way one seperates fact from fiction. That is obviously not to say that changes can not be caused by natural processes alone, it's just that most of the specific changes spoken of in these evolutionary philosophies were not caused by natural processes alone, and there is no logical or reasonable evidence to suggest that they were. Only misleading, deceptive, dishonest and propagandistic so-called "evidence" (or presented in such a manner as if it were evidence or a reason to believe the myths, or even consider them plausible). For that reason there are a number of quotations from evolutionists that have studied these evolutionary philosophies in detail that are very interesting for considerations. But I'm still in doubt whether or not I should take the time to put them in my next comment since you'll so busy with your routine that the same accusations will just be made without saying anything about the quotation itself:

- you're quote mining
- you're appealing to authority
- it's just their opinion (we haven't had that one yet cause the red herring party is still going strong, but we have had the claim that their other opinions that are tickling the ears of some people here rather than something they don't want to hear, acknowledge or even think about, is "science"; their other opinions, in case that sentence was too long)
- 'are you saying that he/she is saying or believing...' (you can read the quote and draw your own conclusions can't ye? Especially a telling question to ask when someone hasn't said anything about the quote yet, in terms of the motivation to ask such a question. People liking their little straw men and Don Quijote Windmill Giants? Enjoyed your victory over them? I'm just sitting here by the fence watching people fight battles against shadows. For months on end, years even. Such a waste. Paul was right:
"always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)
edit on 21-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Philosophy and science are completely different realms. You are intentionly trying to tie the two together thinking you are sounding intellegent and supporting your opinion; however, in reality it is just showing another level of ignorance.

The irony here is the church went after those who could be called early scientists such as Galileo and Darwin because they postulated or proved philosophers wrong. Now here we are hundreds of years later and people continue to push a broken narrative.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

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.

Source: Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“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

Source: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica*

"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. ..."

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica
Science Synonyms, Science Antonyms | Thesaurus.com:

knowledge

Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Or another terminology could be the "established facts" the Encyclopaedia Britannica used or Newton's "certain Truths". "A truth" (noun) is namely also a synonym for "a fact".
I've made comments elsewhere what the word "philosophy" means but I'm usually talking about "philosophies/ideas" so there should be little doubt as to what I'm referring to. Not sure if my commentary here used the word "science" before this comment in order to avoid a useless debate about it with people who are only looking for something to disagree with.

* = concerning the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, see the video below:

Allthough with the above information in mind, a person who may read this may excercise his ability to seperate fact from fiction (or wrong/incorrect opinions) regarding the word "symbiogenesis" used in the quotation* of Shapiro that Phase liked so much, regarding which he said:

He's adding (relatively) new science to the mix. Which is *drumroll* science.

* = it's actually a quatation of wikipedia's explanation of his views/opinions/beliefs regarding those subjects, what I quoted from Shapiro was a direct quotation, the source of which is an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education

This comment of mine may give you some clues to determin if Phase's claim above is true/correct, without error or false/untrue/incorrect. Given what the word "science" stands for. Can we at least agree that mythological tales of something that has never been observed, with no indications from other observations that it's even possible, cannot possibly qualify as "science"? Or honestly or appropiately be qualified as "science"? Perhaps regardless as to how you want to define the word "science" (avoiding debate about that)? Probably not. Probably left the door open for some excuse to disagree on something. I mean, there's gotta be something we can agree on?! It doesn't have to be like this the whole time:

Or this:

Oh btw, since I already accused myself for a certain level of sarcasm (for the sake of honesty and truth, the unsalted version, which is a Dutch expression that somewhat hints at being blunt and uninhibited, not dressing it up with the usual niceties of conversation), Shapiro's views/opinions regarding "symbiogenesis" a.k.a. “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis” (quoting the Encyclopædia Britannica) is making him "look like a bird who swallowed a plate" to me. Quoting a line from the video above and hinting at the phrase "the latest fashion" to think about.

It also reminds me of the video below allthough I'd swap "Percy, It's Green." with "James, no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible."

The video is particularly appropiate when also keeping Phase's terminology "new science" (as if it's a new discovery) in mind. Pardon for using the video in the other thread as well, I get this feeling a lot on ATS. It try to keep some time in between posting them to express those feelings.
edit on 21-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
edit: "since I already accused myself..."

I meant "excused" obviously.

And the 'color of science is proper evidence', and I obviously mean that rather figuratively and metaphorically and making heavy use of something that's said about gold in the video.

Oh and it's Phage I see, not Phase.

And it wasn't wikipedia describing Shapiro's views in his quotation but thethirdwayofevolution.com (it might also be somewhere in or on the back of his book sold for almost 30 bucks at Amazon containing discussion about events for which no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible; listed under "Medicine & Health Sciences").
edit on 21-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Yay! A bunch of claims that have been repeated in almost every recent thread in this section. Good thing you made your own thread so we can debunk this for the hundredth time. Can you please just post the science directly, instead of youtube videos? Animations do not prove anything, and neither do people babbling in youtube videos without references.
edit on 9 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Here are the quotations from people like Shapiro that I spoke about earlier. The quotations are in between the background information about the subject being spoken of. What harm can it do to consider what they're admitting to?

I'm just quoting them for your consideration, not saying anything about it (other than what I said above obviously). Obviously, it's not going to tickle the ears (be pleasant, what you want to hear) for many here. But that's also a bad personal excuse to dismiss it as mere opinion (or variants of dismissal):

They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1
...
Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2*
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3
He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”4
* = Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. ...
Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 [whereislogic: some people only complain about the usage of the word "impossible" when certain people do it in a certain context] RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a selfreplicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland*, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6
* = Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

"not yet fully understood":
Long live the Great We Don't Know (Yet) but Mother Nature did it anyway, damn the evidence, and damn the argument of induction proposed as a consideration in the question below:

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. ... It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

Source: The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking
Isaac Newton regarding a proper and proven effective method in the pursuit of science/knowledge about realities, what one may call a "scientific method":

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 inferred 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.
...
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.

Source: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
edit on 23-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Sources by number:

1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (NASA - Life's Working Definition: Does It Work?), accessed 3/17/2009.
edit on 23-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
(including the reality that evolutionary philosophers are using the word "evolution" in those myths that I'm referring to and described in various ways and terminologies in my quotations and videos that I shared, and always when using this word in these myths it is implied that the change is happening because of natural processes alone; unlike in usages of the word "evolution" on other occasions).

I.e. the common denominator and philosophy in evolutionary philosophies or myths is:

'Mother Nature did it'

Not spelled out like that obviously. Sometimes not even mentioned at all. It is the hidden common denominator ...

Actually, sometimes it is more or less spelled out, but it's rare, see the sign at 7:38:




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join