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.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 45
16
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

Nah... just your typical Christian fundy

Though its amusing that he claims to be educated in science...

Im guessing he got his education from dr Ken Ham



Hey stranger. No, I am accredited by a well-known university for multiple degrees in the sciences. Just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't make them uneducated.


You really have to stop with the lies. If this wasn't a public board I would out you.


edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Phantom423

I can't help but chuckle reading Coop's flat out denial of evidence. You posted the direct letter from the scientist that explained the results and he just poo pooed it away with rhetoric, falsely claiming that the result was denied just because it conflicted with evolution, rather than the obvious fact that it was contaminated and poorly preserved as noted in the tests, not to mention the sample wasn't prepared in the right way because they lied about what it was to get it tested. Either this dude will do anything to preserve his belief system, or he's the greatest troll of all time. It makes me wonder.


There's something very wrong here. He uses exactly the same tactics as other Creationists I have battled with. In fact, I think I know who he is because the language/grammar are familiar.
edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




ETA: Sonething I've never understood from the religious. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn't your flavour of god create the first atoms and let everything take its course?


It can!! I'm not religious, spiritual in my own way. I believe in both and so do many others.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

There is always the chance that they are all cutting and pasting from the same dogma...uh sources? (Yeah I'm being facetious)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

There is always the chance that they are all cutting and pasting from the same dogma...uh sources? (Yeah I'm being facetious)


Actually it's a debating style developed by Duane Gish who was a Creationist. Methinks Mr. Coop has taken up the same strategy when debating his "theories" - essentially, talk a lot, ignore others, particularly ignore evidence. Gish was a biochemist who died in 2013. His debating style is well known and is taught specifically to Creationists to bamboozle opponents.



His debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the Gish gallop, describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12] The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.[13][14]

en.wikipedia.org...-Acts_.26_Facts.2C_May_2013_4-1




The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.


rationalwiki.org...



edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I know who Gish is
That style seems to be the style used by most of the creationist gang here



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, the Gish Gallop has been popular since I've been a member of ATS. Though the only people who seem to think it's a legitimate debate tactic are proponents of YEC and not anyone who has read all of the data they're able to. I somehow doubt the ole coop sits at home reading through journals or books discussion aspects of evolution or Anthropological finds.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I know who Gish is
That style seems to be the style used by most of the creationist gang here


As the description says, it's a fallacious form of debate where they try to smother their opponents with piles of bs. It's also a tactic of cults where the leaders embed false ideas into the minds of the willing. Creationism has nothing to do with Christianity, God or the Bible. It's a cult of evil doers.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, the Gish Gallop has been popular since I've been a member of ATS. Though the only people who seem to think it's a legitimate debate tactic are proponents of YEC and not anyone who has read all of the data they're able to. I somehow doubt the ole coop sits at home reading through journals or books discussion aspects of evolution or Anthropological finds.



As I just mentioned in another post, it's a cult. They worship their leaders and follow like sheep. The bad part is that young minds are corrupted in a way that's very hard to change. I've seen it first hand. Critical thinking has no place in their corrupted world, much less studying the evidence.
edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I am not sure I would go that far. I see creationists as nonscientific zealots, who get offended that a Scientific theory contradicts their perceived views of the Universe.

You are correct that its not Christian, as there are plenty of other Creationist religious groups out there (though mostly Abrahamic faiths).



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

See I've seen this method used online by all sorts for decades. It was a common usenet (mainly in the alt. ghetto) tactic. No matter the topic.

YEt here we are in 2017 and creationists have not changed
Oh wait....



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Ken Ham has always intended to create a cult. As you said though, not all Creationists are cultists. Some are just hell-bent on taking the Bible literally - whatever that may be. But Ham's group are definitely in the cult league.

Ham is somewhat of a financial wizard when it comes to avoiding the IRS and the law. He and his organization functions under several guises. I won't go into the details but eventually he'll go down.
edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh I should have been more clear.

Cult I agree.

Evil doers? Eh perhaps its my own walking in a multi coloured would, that Evil is something I seldom see. Malicious might be what I'd say about them.

Oh and I know Ham well too
My own country has its own idiot associated with it Jonathan Sarfati (though he was born in Australia, and I will blame that)
edit on 16-11-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I am not sure I would go that far. I see creationists as nonscientific zealots, who get offended that a Scientific theory contradicts their perceived views of the Universe.

You are correct that its not Christian, as there are plenty of other Creationist religious groups out there (though mostly Abrahamic faiths).


Ken Ham has always intended to create a cult. As you said though, not all Creationists are cultists. Some are just hell-bent on taking the Bible literally - whatever that may be. But Ham's group are definitely in the cult league.

Ham is somewhat of a financial wizard when it comes to avoiding the IRS and the law. He and his organization function under several guises. I won't go into the details but eventually he'll go down.
edit on 16-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh I should have been more clear.

Cult I agree.

Evil doers? Eh perhaps its my own walking in a multi coloured would, that Evil is something I seldom see. Malicious might be what I'd say about them.


It's all about the money. Follow the money and you'll know their intentions.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

As I said (in an edit as you replied) I know all about Ham.

Some people want to have a following. Crowley did, Gardner did (just adding two examples from my side of the religious spectrum), Hubbard certainly did.

But in the end, yes money is what people worship. The great golden Bull is their god.

Want to go on a cattle raid?



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, the Gish Gallop has been popular since I've been a member of ATS. Though the only people who seem to think it's a legitimate debate tactic are proponents of YEC and not anyone who has read all of the data they're able to. I somehow doubt the ole coop sits at home reading through journals or books discussion aspects of evolution or Anthropological finds.



As I just mentioned in another post, it's a cult. They worship their leaders and follow like sheep. The bad part is that young minds are corrupted in a way that's very hard to change. I've seen it first hand. Critical thinking has no place in their corrupted world, much less studying the evidence.


I agree on all accounts. I find it particularly ironic that Coop tried to make the claim that. I was leading others on a path to hell and locking them out of heaven by promoting the legitimacy of evolution as an observable biological process. Meanwhile, I can pick out the stuff that has literally been copied and planted from AIG and ICR because unlike them, I engage in due diligence and actually look at the other sides arguments and tactics. And I'm being very generous by referring to their rhetoric as arguments and tactics. I had hoped long ago thst when I was done with school that I would be free of dealing with the Gish Gallop yet here we are 20+ years later still engaging in this foolishness.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Wow I am upset, I never got that accusation, and I'm a Pagan who has done research into the genetics of Evolution



posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I'm sure with all the scientists accumulating in Hell, it's only a matter of time before they put their minds together and find a way out of that place.



posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This guy is still hung up on C-14 dating even though a bunch of different posters have told him you don't use it to date dinosaur fossils? Talk about willful ignorance...


You can't even consider the possibility that the theory of evolution is wrong and that is textbook willful ignorance

Certainly not from a Creationist site that cherry picks information and ignores the rest to craft an incorrect narrative, but if you had ACTUAL science proving it incorrect I'd be willing to listen.







 
16
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join